#the censorship around this in the States is astounding
Text
The Legal Web Protecting Steamboat Willie
By Theresa Turkowski, Florida State University Class of 2023
September 13, 2020
It’s astounding that a cartoon from the 1920’s is still under copyright, but the mouse responsible has a team of lawyers that keep Disney characters out of the public domain. But this can’t last forever, although Disney has tried to make it so. Over the years, Disney has campaigned to change copyright law in their favor, giving the big cheese more and more time as private intellectual property. Now however, Disney is all out of pixie dust, and the earliest Steamboat Willie cartoons are set to enter the public domain on January 1st 2024 [1]. So, what does this mean?
To understand the influence Disney has over copyright law in the U.S., we need to take a look back. In Article 1, section 8, clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, Congress gives inventors the right to “secure for limited times… the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries' '[2]. In 1790, the Patent Act offered “limited-time monopoly” on intellectual property, but it only lasted for around 14 years. Copyright law has been periodically extended since the time of the founding fathers and now, it's over seven times longer, with many copyrights lasting over 100 years [1]. The reason why copyrights were initially so short is because the founding fathers believed that patents and copyrights would “promote the progress of science and useful arts” [2]; Once these arts enter the public domain, the idea is it would spur even more creativity and improvement based off previous inventions [2]. Copyright law was brought to court multiple times during the 1800’s; perhaps the most famous case is Stowe v. Thomas in 1853 [3]. In this case, Harriet Beecher Stowe sued F.W. Thomas for translating her book Uncle Tom's Cabin into German, and selling it in the U.S. without her permission [3]. Judge Robert Grier of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately decided that when authors write and publish a book, they “give [their] thoughts, sentiments, knowledge or discoveries to the world [they] can no longer have an exclusive possession of them”[3]. Grier sided with the defendant, Thomas, with the verdict saying that since the book was not a direct reprint, it is not copyright infringement. “A translation could not be correctly called a copy of her book” [4]. Many American authors disagreed, and fought until copyright law was changed slightly in 1870 [3]. A more major revision of the Copyright Act occurred in 1909, when “The bill broadened the scope of categories protected to include all works of authorship, and extended the term of protection to twenty-eight years with a possible renewal of twenty-eight” [3]. A short nineteen years later, a familiar mouse was born.
Walt Disney created the first Mickey Mouse cartoon, Steamboat Willie in 1928 [1]. Under the law revisions in 1909, Disney would be entitled to a copyright for 56 years, until 1984 [1]. But, Disney wasn’t done with their mouse yet. After the death if it’s creator, the company fought to protect Disney's creations, so when rumors of another revision of the U.S. copyright act surfaced, Disney lobbied congress to protect Mickey [3]. In 1976, Congress had overhauled copyright law in the U.S., making all of the lobbying well worth it [3]. The 1976 revisions came about in order to keep up with the ever growing impact of technology on copyright law, to better define what counts as ‘infringement’ and to “bring the U.S. into accord with international copyright law, practices, and policies” [3]. The new revisions worked as follows: “ individual authors were granted protection for their life, plus an additional 50 years, and for works authored by a corporation, the legislation granted a retroactive extension for works published before the new system took effect” [1]. The part that helped Disney was the discussion of an extension for pre-existing works, under this new revision, the total years that Mickey Mouse’s Steamboat Willie would be under copyright went from 56 to 75 years [1], extending the copyright from 1984 to 2003 [1]. However, the 1976 extension doesn’t bring us to the present day.
Once again, Disney lobbied like mad to protect their mascot, and once again, their lobbying paid off. In 1998, the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act was passed, also called the “Mickey Mouse Protection Act” [5]. This act was the 11th extension in 40 years [6]. The Sonny Bono act essentially said “The law extended protection from life of the author plus fifty years to life of the author plus seventy years” [3]. But Disney is a corporation, and the Sonny Bono acts says “Corporate works are protected under copyright law for 95 years from their original publication” [1]. Now, finally, Disney’s copyright is expected to expire January 1st, 2024 [1].
So, as of 2020, is there any indication that Disney will once again fight American copyright law? Predictions say, Disney may not fight it this time [7]. It might not be financially worth it for Disney to lobby for an old cartoon [8] that many children and adults alike don’t associate with their childhood. Lucky for Disney, the copyright that will expire is not Mickey Mouse in his entirety, rather, only the single depiction of him, the Steamboat Willie cartoon [7]. Mickey the character and Steamboat Willie are in separate legal jurisdictions [7]. Each inclination of Mickey Mouse is yet another copyright, so Mickey himself will not be in the public domain perhaps anytime during my life. Stephen Carlisle of Nova Southeastern University cites “Tarzan” as an example of the complexities of copyright law. “The use of trademark law to protect works also subject to copyright is nothing new. The first 21 stories about Tarzan, being first published commencing in 1916, are now all in the public domain. Yet, there are no rival stories about Tarzan being currently written by other authors. This is because heirs of Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator of Tarzan, had the foresight to obtain a trademark on the name “Tarzan.” Armed with this registration, they have been successful in preventing the distribution of works using the “Tarzan” trademark and variations.” [7]. Knowing Disney, they have most likely copyrighted every possible thing about their world famous characters, so the public might get Steamboat Willie, but Mickey is still owned by Disney.
Critics say that Copyright law is not designed to keep companies rich long after their founder is gone. Copyright law, according to our founding fathers, is designed to incentivize creativity through moderate monetary gains [2], but not to the point of a multi-billion dollar empire. Many Professors agree that copyright law in the U.S. is so complicated because of the Walt Disney Company. Disney has lobbied and campaigned for decades to keep the earliest depictions of Mickey Mouse out of the public domain. 2024 will be a pivotal time for the Walt Disney Company, with their luck running out, the Steamboat Willie may enter the public domain. It’s unlikely that Disney’s team of ironclad lawyers will go down without a fight, but the probability of an outright overhaul of the 1976 law is miniscule.
Since Walt Disney created Steamboat Willie in 1928, Mickey Mouse has been a staple in millions of childhoods around the world. Every time Mickey comes close to entering the public domain however, Disney lobbies congress for extensions on the original 1928 copyright, with the first major extension in 1976 and the second major extension in 1998. Now, Disney’s beloved cartoons copyright is due to expire in 2024, and its unclear whether Disney will fight for their mouse once more.
________________________________________________________________
[1]https://www.theiplawblog.com/2016/02/articles/copyright-law/disneys-influence-on-united-states-copyright-law/
[2] https://www.financialpoise.com/copyright-law/
[3] https://www.arl.org/copyright-timeline/
[4] https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-stowe-v-thomas
[5]https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/peter-pan-growing-up-stirs-legal-gray-area-with-mickey-up-soon
[6]https://www.wired.com/story/congress-latest-move-to-extend-copyright-protection-is-misguided/
[7] https://screenrant.com/disney-mickey-mouse-steamboat-willie-copyright-2024/
[8]https://www.aei.org/technology-and-innovation/intellectual-property/as-copyrighted-works-reenter-the-public-domain-is-the-end-of-mickey-nigh/
[9] https://time.com/3507973/disney-censorship/
0 notes
Text
Things YOU Need to KNOW Right before Touring TO SINGAPORE Items YOU Should really KNOW Ahead of Touring TO SINGAPORE
The People’s Republic of China is an astounding nation, with an ancient background steeped in question and so many modern marvels to examine. This interesting and special country is the most populated region in the environment, as nicely as one particular of the biggest by land mass.
Numerous of the folks who reside below still abide by their conventional Chinese tradition, but the nation has often been at the forefront of innovation too, graduating far more science, technological innovation, engineering, and arithmetic students than any other state in the latest years.
You almost certainly currently know that China is the world’s longest continuous civilization, that its Great Wall is the major artifical composition on the world (but contrary to well known perception, is not seen from space), and the Silk Road is the oldest and longest trade route at any time even so, did you know that China is also dependable for the generation of our present day decimal and binary units, algebra, geometry, and the discovery of the human circulatory method?
Did you also know that 1.7 million pigs are eaten each day in China and that just one odd delicacy is ‘urine eggs’ which are eggs boiled for 24 hours in the urine of young boys? Neither did we! Below are ten much more remarkable facts about China that you probably did not know:
China has only a single time zone
In spite of being the third-greatest country in the globe by square mileage (China is nearly as vast as the US) and technically spanning 5 time zones, the whole state has operated less than a person single time zone because 1949, when ‘Beijing Typical Time’ was built official by the Communist Social gathering. That indicates when it is 6am in Beijing, it is also 6am across the other facet of the state – even even though the solar won’t rise for about 3 hours.
Most faculties, transportation solutions, and other Government providers in the westernmost location of Xinjiang obey Beijing time, even though quite a few nearby companies adhere to their have time. This suggests young children are going for walks to college by starlight, whilst afterwards, some locals are having caught up in hurry hour traffic… at 7pm!
Chinese new moms are intended to ‘sit’ for four weeks
You may have listened to that partners in China need to have to utilize for a ‘Family Arranging Certificate’ to have a little one, but did you know that after the birth, new mothers are usually intended to continue to be in confinement for a thirty day period?
This custom – named ‘Sitting the Month’ – entails the new mother resting in mattress for a month, not exposing herself to persons or any situations that may possibly result in strain, such as exertion, cold temperature, emotional strain, and ordinarily, even drinking water!
Being physically damp was imagined to pose a well being chance to the mom, as she may capture a chilly if she’s uncovered to these things as a result of bathing and hair washing. Luckily, averting h2o is a lot less often practiced these times, but moms (and in some cases fathers) nevertheless frequently participate.
The confinement is intended to give the mother relaxation and recuperate from the beginning, make sure equally her and her little one are not uncovered to unwanted threats, increase breastmilk output and improve the maternal bond.
Soccer was invented in China
The historic Chinese not only invented paper, gunpowder, printing and the compass, but they also invented the idea of soccer (or soccer, if you want). The game of ‘cuju’ – which usually means ‘kick the ball with foot’ – was frequently played during the Han Dynasty (206 BC-220 Advertisement). The attractiveness of cuju then distribute to neighboring countries and the rest is history!
You simply cannot accessibility western sites in China
Though China is unquestionably a charming nation with unsurpassed magnificence, fascinating heritage, and awesome individuals, the current Govt do not seriously want to dilute it all with western impact, so they have established a point out of large censorship, banning a lot of western web sites.
If you had been taking into consideration a pay a visit to to China, really do not be expecting to be in a position to search Google, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube or Reddit web-sites, just to identify a few – these have been blocked by what lots of have dubbed the ‘Great Firewall of China’.
The Federal government have even tried to block techniques for circumventing their firewall, including blocking the use of numerous VPNs. Luckily, it’s nonetheless actually simple to bypass this firewall making use of VPNs, but only if you know which ones nevertheless perform! If you want to know which VPNs to use to get by means of China’s firewall, take a look at vpnMentor’s article ‘9 Greatest (Still Working in 2019) VPNs for China – 3 Are No cost’ and enjoy some net independence in China.
The Chinese intensely censor their film field
There is no movie rating system in spot in China, but that doesn’t indicate it is a haven for 12-year-olds who want to observe grown ups only films. Films are censored for the exact explanations as the country’s net.
As a substitute of ratings, there is a 36-particular person committee who make certain nothing at all untoward or inappropriate helps make it by way of to Chinese audiences. When they discover anything too raunchy, violent, flamboyant or insulting to China, they merely slash the entire scene out of the film ahead of releasing it to the general public!
These cuts include the well known nude portray scene in Titanic becoming eliminated, a total minute of ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ being lower thanks to a gentleman-on-guy kissing scene and drug use, as well as 13 minutes of ‘Men In Black 3’ staying eradicated mainly because it highlighted an alien disguised as a Chinese particular person. If you are in China and want to view any censored films, you can use just one of the VPNs mentioned in this article.
Chinese manners are a small unique
Quite a few international locations think burping following a meal displays that the food was scrumptious and is a indicator of excellent manners, whilst other nations around the world really do not blink an eye at spitting in the streets. There are also a lot of people who really don’t assume yawning large or grunting are rude – in China, all of these are completely acceptable whilst ingesting!
Even additional intriguing is the country’s absence of diaper use. Older babies and toddlers who are capable to use a potty never wear them. In its place, they dress in unique pants with a break up in the rear and when they need to go potty, they squat anywhere they experience like it and go. We don’t just imply outdoors both. It’s suitable for the youngest Chinese citizens to poop or pee anywhere they really feel the require to, within or out!
China is total of cavemen
Not genuinely, but near! Because of to inheritance, tradition and occasionally poverty and lack of inexpensive housing, an estimated 35 million Chinese persons stay in caves. The vast majority stay in the yellow, porous cliffs and hillsides of the Loess plateau in Shaanxi province. The Government has tried to shift them on but the extended-time period inhabitants love their cave households and refuse to budge.
The Chinese do actually eat canine meat and also invented the initial ice cream
Most men and women have listened to the rumor that Chinese men and women consume pet dogs and this is actually no rumor. In the town of Yulin for 1 day for every year, the inhabitants celebrate the summer season solstice by taking in pet dogs bred for this purpose. The pet dog meat is eaten as a tradition that began 4000 several years ago.
Another historic tradition that began all around the exact time is the milk-primarily based treats that the Chinese invented, designed with yaks milk and rice and cooled with saltpeter (potassium nitrate) and snow poured on the exterior of the containers. Sure, these were the very first milk-primarily based ice treats most similar to what we now think of today as ice cream.
The Chinese are masters of war
You may possibly imagine that substantial fuel and chemical weapons are a fairly modern-day invention, but the Chinese were essentially the first to poison people on a mass scale, with incendiary weapons staying reportedly applied as early as 200BC in accordance to Sunlight Tzu’s ‘Art of War’.
There ended up also reviews of arsenic fuel bombs being made use of by the Chinese as early as 1000BC and their war background is littered with comparable references and hundreds of recipes for weapons of mass destruction, like the supernatural -sounding ‘soul-searching fog’. They may have also been the 1st place to use covert spy functions, as they invented kites to acquire military intelligence about 3000 a long time in the past.
The Art of War is alone a bible of warfare tactics and many strategies from the ebook are nevertheless made use of currently. Although the Chinese have generally been ruthless to their enemies, they are not entirely war oriented – Shanghai was the only port in the world who were being accepting Jewish men and women without having visas in the course of the holocaust.
China has the World’s biggest military
The Chinese aren’t only masters of war traditionally, but they are also well-prepared for any potential beat. The People’s Liberation Army offers the greatest number of troopers on the earth, with a lot more than 2 million troopers. It also has the second major defense pressure price range and is almost regarded a military services superpower.
source http://cheaprtravels.com/things-you-need-to-know-right-before-touring-to-singapore-items-you-should-really-know-ahead-of-touring-to-singapore/
1 note
·
View note
Text
China Expands Virus Lockdown, Encircling 20 Million
WUHAN, China — The authorities drastically expanded a travel lockdown in central China on Thursday, essentially penning in 20 million residents to contain a deadly virus that is overwhelming hospitals and fueling fears of a pandemic.
The new limits — abruptly decreed ahead of the Lunar New Year holiday, China’s busiest travel season — were an extraordinary step that underscored the ruling Communist Party’s deepening fears about the outbreak of a little understood coronavirus. It has killed at least 18 people in China and sickened more than 600 in at least seven countries, including the United States, according to statistics from health officials.
In Wuhan, the Hubei provincial capital of 11 million where the outbreak began, anxiety and anger prevailed as worried residents crowded into hospitals and teams of medical workers in hazmat suits sought to identify the infected.
“They can’t take proper care of all the people here,” said Sun Ansheng, a man in his 50s who was waiting outside a hospital while his wife was tested for the coronavirus, so named because of the spiky halo around the microorganism.
“The city government told us there was a virus, but they didn’t explain enough what we should do,” Mr. Sun said. “They left it sounding too minor. Now look.”
Even as the Chinese authorities imposed the new restrictions — blocking expressways, cutting flights and warning residents to stay put — experts warned that the country risked a repeat of the SARS epidemic, which broke out in China in late 2002 and spread for months while officials played down its severity.
The World Health Organization’s emergency committee, meeting in Geneva on Thursday for the second consecutive day, said it was too early to declare an international health emergency though it would reconvene in 10 days or less to reassess the outbreak.
The images in Wuhan offered a jarring contrast to the attempts by Chinese leaders in Beijing to project confident composure. President Xi Jinping led a toast in an ornate hall in Beijing to the Lunar New Year, which begins on Saturday, and he did not mention the crisis in his remarks to the cheerful crowd of officials and guests.
Even so, a sense of anxiety was deepening across China, with hospitals scrambling to cope with an influx of possibly infected patients and people lashing out online at the government. In Beijing, officials announced that they would temporarily close the Forbidden City.
On Thursday morning, the authorities imposed a travel lockdown in Wuhan, the industrial city at the epicenter of the outbreak. Airlines canceled hundreds of flights to Wuhan, leaving thousands of people stranded. Later in the day, officials said they would also halt public transportation in the nearby cities of Huanggang, Ezhou, Zhijiang and Chibi, which are together home to more than nine million residents.
Some residents in Wuhan spoke speculatively of trying to skirt the blockade by driving on rural back roads to evade police checkpoints.
“It’s serious, but not that serious,” said Wang Mengkai, a worker in an electronics parts factory who was stuck at the Wuhan Railway Station, hoping to figure out a way to join his family in Henan Province for the Lunar New Year celebrations. “If we can’t get out on a train, we’ll try putting together a car with a driver,” he said.
Anger and frustration spread among Wuhan residents lined up at hospitals seeking diagnosis and treatment for coughs and fevers. Most residents interviewed said they could see the logic of travel restrictions. But many accused officials of having failed to ensure that enough medical workers were properly trained, while medical workers reported shortfalls of critical protective gear such as masks and goggles.
“I’m willing to accept that we have to stay in Wuhan, O.K., but the medical care needs to keep up,” said Yang Lin, 28, who had come seeking treatment for what she described as a cold. “You shouldn’t tell us we can’t leave, and then give us second-rate medical care. That’s unfair.”
Several residents said they had gone from hospital to hospital and lined up for hours, only to be sent home with medicine and instructions to seek further treatment if symptoms persisted.
Doctors told some patients of insufficient hospital beds and testing kits. Some residents worry officials are underreporting the number of people ill with the virus, although the government has warned of dire consequences for those who hide or delay reporting cases.
“The government did not fulfill its duty,” Du Hanrong, 56, a retiree, said by telephone. “They just are doing things hastily and carelessly.”
The Wuhan city government acknowledged that crowds were forming at hospitals, and it came under intensifying criticism from scientists and the public, who described the response as too little, too late.
Experts said that the mass travel restrictions, while understandable, would do little to stop the spread of the virus outside China, as many infected people had already left Wuhan.
“The horse is already out of the barn,” said Dr. W. Ian Lipkin, an epidemiologist at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, who had assisted the Chinese authorities in the response to SARS.
In an unusually blunt rebuke, Dr. Guan Yi, a prominent Hong Kong scientist who also assisted in the SARS crisis, said officials had obstructed his efforts to investigate the outbreak during a trip to Wuhan this week.
“I consider myself a veteran in battles,” he said in an interview published Thursday by the influential magazine Caixin, citing his experience with bird flu, SARS, and other outbreaks. “But with this Wuhan pneumonia, I feel extremely powerless.”
On Thursday, in what experts described as a somewhat reassuring sign, the Chinese authorities released details about the 18 people who have died in the outbreak, showing that the disease has so far largely killed older men, many with underlying health problems. But the 18th victim was the first to have died hundreds of miles from the Wuhan epicenter, punctuating the risk of fatal cases far from where the virus was first reported.
Experts said the severity of the outbreak would depend on whether other epicenters develop, as happened during the SARS crisis. But they acknowledged that much remains unknown, including how easily the new virus spreads between people.
Wuhan sits astride the mighty Yangtze River, and the restaurants and hotels along its banks — usually busy in the holiday season — were mostly shut. Retail streets were desolate, and the roads were often eerily empty.
But cars crowded around seven hospitals across Wuhan that have been designated as reception points for residents with high fevers that may have been caused by the new coronavirus. Some people waiting outside clinics in a drizzly rain said that their family members had lined up for much of the day to be checked by a doctor.
After SARS broke out nearly 20 years ago, the Chinese government took steps to improve its public health system, including monitoring infectious diseases. But the lingering public distrust created by cover-ups of SARS and other health threats appears to have undercut those achievements.
Dali Yang, a professor of political science at the University of Chicago, said that while the current response has benefited from China’s improved technical capabilities since the SARS crisis, “what I find astounding was how the Wuhan authorities consistently downplayed the seriousness of the situation.”
The lessons from SARS, he said in an email, were “that it’s important to let the public know and get the public to modify their behavior.”
Still, China’s leaders maintained an unruffled face. The Communist Party’s most influential news outlets did not feature the crisis, choosing instead to promote Mr. Xi’s New Year speech and cheery reports about the holiday season.
On Thursday, China Central Television, the state broadcaster, treated the situation in Wuhan as a footnote in its evening newscast, one of the most watched television programs in China, airing a roughly one-minute report on the outbreak. Experts said Mr. Xi appeared to be trying to prevent a sense of panic and to limit criticism of the party’s response.
“The top priority will be to keep coverage from asking more probing questions about how China’s institutions have responded, questions that might lead to criticism of the government,” said David Bandurski, co-director of the China Media Project, a group affiliated with the University of Hong Kong.
Some internet users found ways around government censorship to criticize the response by local officials, saying on social media that they worried about a repeat of the SARS crisis. Many said they were also concerned about possible food shortages and higher prices on everyday goods.
Mao Shoulong, a professor of public administration at Renmin University in Beijing, said the Wuhan government had made a series of missteps that had eroded public confidence.
“They failed the test,” Professor Mao said. “They just copied the SARS situation, making small things turn into a big problem.”
Chris Buckley reported from Wuhan, China, and Javier C. Hernández from Beijing. Elsie Chen, Yiwei Wang and Zoe Mou contributed research.
from WordPress https://mastcomm.com/event/china-expands-virus-lockdown-encircling-20-million/
0 notes
Text
History of Comics in Australia
Aussies love comics. Much like our fellow fans from the United States, we love it as much, if not more. Have you ever wondered why is that?
We have one of the richest comic book histories in the world. The history of comics in Australia is so deep in us that we’ve got a lot of local history to tell. Not everything is unique to us, but it shows a lot of our culture here down under.
Here’s what happened.
Early Days Of Aussie Comics
The history of comics in Australia started in 1908, with newspaper sources referring to Vumps. Vumps published with the subtitle “pure Australian fun.” The publication, however, only lasted for a single issue.
By the 1910s and 1920s, there are a few small but regular publications of newspaper comics. These include The Golden Age of Australian Comics in 1916 and You & Me by Stan Cross in 1920. At this point, Australia’s longest running comic strip, Ginger Meggs, came into fruition under the pen of Jimmy Bancks in 1921.
The Growing Local Comics Scene In Australia
The real start of Australia’s love for comic books started in 1931. The first Aussie comic book, the Kookaburra, featured full-fledged characters. After a few years, Syd Nicholls’ Fatty Finn came into publication too.
At around this decade, the Aussie market flooded with reprints of US comic strips. These include Felix The Cat, The Phantom, and Buck Rogers. There were also many Sunday pages in newspapers, including Tarzan and Dick Tracy.
As World War II came in, the Australian Government banned comic book imports from the US. This gave the local comic book industry a boom, having cornered the market. This Golden Age of Australian comics gave way to the current love for everything comic books.
During this age of Post-War Australia, Ginger Meggs became a national publication. It represented everything that Australia Comics was.
Creations like Captain Atom, Yarmak, The Lone Wolf, and The Phantom comic book by Frew Publications became staples in the market. This continued as the on to the 1950s as the import ban still held up. The comic censorship started to crop up, and American comic imports began to come back in 1969.
Australian Comics Now
By the time the 70s came, the local comic book creators in Australia coexisted with reprints of major publications from Marvel and DC. Many were unable to compete in the local market. The comic loving Aussies had to put their attention to the two comic book giants.
Gerald Carr became active in the comic book scene again. His stories like Brainmaster and Vixen became smash hits. Local companies resorted to an underground scene to publish their comics.
By the early 80s, the Aussie market is now doing direct imports of the comics we know and love. Even today, we still have a burgeoning local comics industry. We still love our Marvel and DC lines, patronizing comic books for their fantastic stories.
Looking At The History Of Comics In Australia
So, why do Aussies love comics? With our rich history of comics in Australia, it’s hard to deny that we have a special relationship with them. We Aussies loved our stories even from the early days of our formation.
Our unique connection with comic books harkens back to a time where it was all we had. Whether it was the good old days or the trying times, we had a comic book to make us happy. Even now, a comic book is a secret buddy to all of us – one that brings us to astounding worlds we’ve never seen before.
source https://comicscape.com.au/sydris/history-of-comics-in-australia/
0 notes
Text
Facebook staff demand Zuckerberg limit lies in politcal ads
Submit campaign ads to fact checking, limit microtargeting, cap spending, observe silence periods, or at least warn users. These are the solutions Facebook employees put forward in an open letter pleading with CEO Mark Zuckerberg and company leadership to address misinformation in political ads.
The letter, obtained by the New York Times’ Mike Isaac, insists that “Free speech and paid speech are not the same thing . . . Our current policies on fact checking people in political office, or those running for office, are a threat to what FB stands for.” The letter was posted to Facebook’s internal collaboration forum a few weeks ago.
Facebook should ban campaign ads. End the lies.
The sentiments echo what I called for in a TechCrunch opinion piece on October 13th calling on Facebook to ban political ads. Unfettered misinformation in political ads on Facebook lets politicians and their supporters spread inflammatory and inaccurate claims about their views and their rivals while racking up donations to buy more of these ads.
The social network can still offer freedom of expression to political campaigns on their own Facebook Pages while limiting the ability of the richest and most dishonest to pay to make their lies the loudest. We suggested that if Facebook won’t drop political ads, they should be fact checked and/or use an array of generic “vote for me” or “donate here” ad units that don’t allow accusations. We also criticized how microtargeting of communities vulnerable to misinformation and instant donation links make Facebook ads more dangerous than equivalent TV or radio spots.
The Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, testified before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday October 23, 2019 Washington, D.C. (Photo by Aurora Samperio/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Over 250 employees of Facebook’s 35,000 staffers have signed the letter, that declares “We strongly object to this policy as it stands. It doesn’t protect voices, but instead allows politicians to weaponize our platform by targeting people who believe that content posted by political figures is trustworthy.” It suggests the current policy undermines Facebook’s election integrity work, confuses users about where misinformation is allowed, and signals Facebook is happy to profit from lies.
The solutions suggested include:
Don’t accept political ads unless they’re subject to third-party fact checks
Use visual design to more strongly differentiate between political ads and organic non-ad posts
Restrict microtargeting for political ads including the use of Custom Audiences since microtargeted hides ads from as much public scrutiny that Facebook claims keeps politicians honest
Observe pre-election silence periods for political ads to limit the impact and scale of misinformation
Limit ad spending per politician or candidate, with spending by them and their supporting political action committees combined
Make it more visually clear to users that political ads aren’t fact-checked
A combination of these approaches could let Facebook stop short of banning political ads without allowing rampant misinformation or having to police individual claims.
Facebook’s response to the letter was “We remain committed to not censoring political speech, and will continue exploring additional steps we can take to bring increased transparency to political ads.” But that straw-man’s the letter’s request. Employees aren’t asking politicians to be kicked off Facebook or have their posts/ads deleted. They’re asking for warning labels and limits on paid reach. That’s not censorship.
Zuckerberg had stood resolute on the policy despite backlash from the press and lawmakers including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). She left him tongue-tied during a congressional testimony when she asked exactly what kinds of misinfo were allowed in ads.
But then Friday Facebook blocked an ad designed to test its limits by claiming Republican Lindsey Graham had voted for Ocasio-Cortez’s Green Deal he actually opposes. Facebook told Reuters it will fact-check PAC ads
One sensible approach for politicians’ ads would be for Facebook to ramp up fact-checking, starting with Presidential candidates until it has the resources to scan more. Those fact-checked as false should receive an interstitial warning blocking their content rather than just a “false” label. That could be paired with giving political ads a bigger disclaimer without making them too prominent looking in general and only allowing targeting by state.
Deciding on potential spending limits and silent periods would be more messy. Low limits could even the playing field and broad silent periods especially during voting periods could prevent voter suppression. Perhaps these specifics should be left to Facebook’s upcoming independent Oversight Board that acts as a supreme court for moderation decisions and policies.
Zuckerberg’s core argument for the policy is that over time, history bends towards more speech, not censorship. But that succumbs to utopic fallacy that assumes technology evenly advantages the honest and dishonest. In reality, sensational misinformation spreads much further and faster than level-headed truth. Microtargeted ads with thousands of variants undercut and overwhelm the democratic apparatus designed to punish liars, while partisan news outlets counter attempts to call them out.
Zuckerberg wants to avoid Facebook becoming the truth police. But as we and employees have put forward, there a progressive approaches to limiting misinformation if he’s willing to step back from his philosophical orthodoxy.
The full text of the letter from Facebook employees to leadership about political ads can be found below, via the New York Times:
We are proud to work here.
Facebook stands for people expressing their voice. Creating a place where we can debate, share different opinions, and express our views is what makes our app and technologies meaningful for people all over the world.
We are proud to work for a place that enables that expression, and we believe it is imperative to evolve as societies change. As Chris Cox said, “We know the effects of social media are not neutral, and its history has not yet been written.”
This is our company.
We’re reaching out to you, the leaders of this company, because we’re worried we’re on track to undo the great strides our product teams have made in integrity over the last two years. We work here because we care, because we know that even our smallest choices impact communities at an astounding scale. We want to raise our concerns before it’s too late.
Free speech and paid speech are not the same thing.
Misinformation affects us all. Our current policies on fact checking people in political office, or those running for office, are a threat to what FB stands for. We strongly object to this policy as it stands. It doesn’t protect voices, but instead allows politicians to weaponize our platform by targeting people who believe that content posted by political figures is trustworthy.
Allowing paid civic misinformation to run on the platform in its current state has the potential to:
— Increase distrust in our platform by allowing similar paid and organic content to sit side-by-side — some with third-party fact-checking and some without. Additionally, it communicates that we are OK profiting from deliberate misinformation campaigns by those in or seeking positions of power.
— Undo integrity product work. Currently, integrity teams are working hard to give users more context on the content they see, demote violating content, and more. For the Election 2020 Lockdown, these teams made hard choices on what to support and what not to support, and this policy will undo much of that work by undermining trust in the platform. And after the 2020 Lockdown, this policy has the potential to continue to cause harm in coming elections around the world.
Proposals for improvement
Our goal is to bring awareness to our leadership that a large part of the employee body does not agree with this policy. We want to work with our leadership to develop better solutions that both protect our business and the people who use our products. We know this work is nuanced, but there are many things we can do short of eliminating political ads altogether.
These suggestions are all focused on ad-related content, not organic.
1. Hold political ads to the same standard as other ads.
a. Misinformation shared by political advertisers has an outsized detrimental impact on our community. We should not accept money for political ads without applying the standards that our other ads have to follow.
2. Stronger visual design treatment for political ads.
a. People have trouble distinguishing political ads from organic posts. We should apply a stronger design treatment to political ads that makes it easier for people to establish context.
3. Restrict targeting for political ads.
a. Currently, politicians and political campaigns can use our advanced targeting tools, such as Custom Audiences. It is common for political advertisers to upload voter rolls (which are publicly available in order to reach voters) and then use behavioral tracking tools (such as the FB pixel) and ad engagement to refine ads further. The risk with allowing this is that it’s hard for people in the electorate to participate in the “public scrutiny” that we’re saying comes along with political speech. These ads are often so micro-targeted that the conversations on our platforms are much more siloed than on other platforms. Currently we restrict targeting for housing and education and credit verticals due to a history of discrimination. We should extend similar restrictions to political advertising.
4. Broader observance of the election silence periods
a. Observe election silence in compliance with local laws and regulations. Explore a self-imposed election silence for all elections around the world to act in good faith and as good citizens.
5. Spend caps for individual politicians, regardless of source
a. FB has stated that one of the benefits of running political ads is to help more voices get heard. However, high-profile politicians can out-spend new voices and drown out the competition. To solve for this, if you have a PAC and a politician both running ads, there would be a limit that would apply to both together, rather than to each advertiser individually.
6. Clearer policies for political ads
a. If FB does not change the policies for political ads, we need to update the way they are displayed. For consumers and advertisers, it’s not immediately clear that political ads are exempt from the fact-checking that other ads go through. It should be easily understood by anyone that our advertising policies about misinformation don’t apply to original political content or ads, especially since political misinformation is more destructive than other types of misinformation.
Therefore, the section of the policies should be moved from “prohibited content” (which is not allowed at all) to “restricted content” (which is allowed with restrictions).
We want to have this conversation in an open dialog because we want to see actual change.
We are proud of the work that the integrity teams have done, and we don’t want to see that undermined by policy. Over the coming months, we’ll continue this conversation, and we look forward to working towards solutions together.
This is still our company.
from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/336qc16
via IFTTT
0 notes
Link
Submit campaign ads to fact checking, limit microtargeting, cap spending, observe silence periods, or at least warn users. These are the solutions Facebook employees put forward in an open letter pleading with CEO Mark Zuckerberg and company leadership to address misinformation in political ads.
The letter, obtained by the New York Times’ Mike Isaac, insists that “Free speech and paid speech are not the same thing . . . Our current policies on fact checking people in political office, or those running for office, are a threat to what FB stands for.” The letter was posted to Facebook’s internal collaboration forum a few weeks ago.
Facebook should ban campaign ads. End the lies.
The sentiments echo what I called for in a TechCrunch opinion piece on October 13th calling on Facebook to ban political ads. Unfettered misinformation in political ads on Facebook lets politicians and their supporters spread inflammatory and inaccurate claims about their views and their rivals while racking up donations to buy more of these ads.
The social network can still offer freedom of expression to political campaigns on their own Facebook Pages while limiting the ability of the richest and most dishonest to pay to make their lies the loudest. We suggested that if Facebook won’t drop political ads, they should be fact checked and/or use an array of generic “vote for me” or “donate here” ad units that don’t allow accusations. We also criticized how microtargeting of communities vulnerable to misinformation and instant donation links make Facebook ads more dangerous than equivalent TV or radio spots.
The Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, testified before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday October 23, 2019 Washington, D.C. (Photo by Aurora Samperio/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Over 250 employees of Facebook’s 35,000 staffers have signed the letter, that declares “We strongly object to this policy as it stands. It doesn’t protect voices, but instead allows politicians to weaponize our platform by targeting people who believe that content posted by political figures is trustworthy.” It suggests the current policy undermines Facebook’s election integrity work, confuses users about where misinformation is allowed, and signals Facebook is happy to profit from lies.
The solutions suggested include:
Don’t accept political ads unless they’re subject to third-party fact checks
Use visual design to more strongly differentiate between political ads and organic non-ad posts
Restrict microtargeting for political ads including the use of Custom Audiences since microtargeted hides ads from as much public scrutiny that Facebook claims keeps politicians honest
Observe pre-election silence periods for political ads to limit the impact and scale of misinformation
Limit ad spending per politician or candidate, with spending by them and their supporting political action committees combined
Make it more visually clear to users that political ads aren’t fact-checked
A combination of these approaches could let Facebook stop short of banning political ads without allowing rampant misinformation or having to police individual claims.
Zuckerberg had stood resolute on the policy despite backlash from the press and lawmakers including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). She left him tongue-tied during a congressional testimony when she asked exactly what kinds of misinfo were allowed in ads.
But then Friday Facebook blocked an ad designed to test its limits by claiming Republican Lindsey Graham had voted for Ocasio-Cortez’s Green Deal he actually opposes. Facebook told Reuters it will fact-check PAC ads
One sensible approach for politicians’ ads would be for Facebook to ramp up fact-checking, starting with Presidential candidates until it has the resources to scan more. Those fact-checked as false should receive an interstitial warning blocking their content rather than just a “false” label. That could be paired with giving political ads a bigger disclaimer without making them too prominent looking in general and only allowing targeting by state.
Deciding on potential spending limits and silent periods would be more messy. Low limits could even the playing field and broad silent periods especially during voting periods could prevent voter suppression. Perhaps these specifics should be left to Facebook’s upcoming independent Oversight Board that acts as a supreme court for moderation decisions and policies.
Zuckerberg’s core argument for the policy is that over time, history bends towards more speech, not censorship. But that succumbs to utopic fallacy that assumes technology evenly advantages the honest and dishonest. In reality, sensational misinformation spreads much further and faster than level-headed truth. Microtargeted ads with thousands of variants undercut and overwhelm the democratic apparatus designed to punish liars, while partisan news outlets counter attempts to call them out.
Zuckerberg wants to avoid Facebook becoming the truth police. But as we and employees have put forward, there a progressive approaches to limiting misinformation if he’s willing to step back from his philosophical orthodoxy.
The full text of the letter from Facebook employees to leadership about political ads can be found below, via the New York Times:
We are proud to work here.
Facebook stands for people expressing their voice. Creating a place where we can debate, share different opinions, and express our views is what makes our app and technologies meaningful for people all over the world.
We are proud to work for a place that enables that expression, and we believe it is imperative to evolve as societies change. As Chris Cox said, “We know the effects of social media are not neutral, and its history has not yet been written.”
This is our company.
We’re reaching out to you, the leaders of this company, because we’re worried we’re on track to undo the great strides our product teams have made in integrity over the last two years. We work here because we care, because we know that even our smallest choices impact communities at an astounding scale. We want to raise our concerns before it’s too late.
Free speech and paid speech are not the same thing.
Misinformation affects us all. Our current policies on fact checking people in political office, or those running for office, are a threat to what FB stands for. We strongly object to this policy as it stands. It doesn’t protect voices, but instead allows politicians to weaponize our platform by targeting people who believe that content posted by political figures is trustworthy.
Allowing paid civic misinformation to run on the platform in its current state has the potential to:
— Increase distrust in our platform by allowing similar paid and organic content to sit side-by-side — some with third-party fact-checking and some without. Additionally, it communicates that we are OK profiting from deliberate misinformation campaigns by those in or seeking positions of power.
— Undo integrity product work. Currently, integrity teams are working hard to give users more context on the content they see, demote violating content, and more. For the Election 2020 Lockdown, these teams made hard choices on what to support and what not to support, and this policy will undo much of that work by undermining trust in the platform. And after the 2020 Lockdown, this policy has the potential to continue to cause harm in coming elections around the world.
Proposals for improvement
Our goal is to bring awareness to our leadership that a large part of the employee body does not agree with this policy. We want to work with our leadership to develop better solutions that both protect our business and the people who use our products. We know this work is nuanced, but there are many things we can do short of eliminating political ads altogether.
These suggestions are all focused on ad-related content, not organic.
1. Hold political ads to the same standard as other ads.
a. Misinformation shared by political advertisers has an outsized detrimental impact on our community. We should not accept money for political ads without applying the standards that our other ads have to follow.
2. Stronger visual design treatment for political ads.
a. People have trouble distinguishing political ads from organic posts. We should apply a stronger design treatment to political ads that makes it easier for people to establish context.
3. Restrict targeting for political ads.
a. Currently, politicians and political campaigns can use our advanced targeting tools, such as Custom Audiences. It is common for political advertisers to upload voter rolls (which are publicly available in order to reach voters) and then use behavioral tracking tools (such as the FB pixel) and ad engagement to refine ads further. The risk with allowing this is that it’s hard for people in the electorate to participate in the “public scrutiny” that we’re saying comes along with political speech. These ads are often so micro-targeted that the conversations on our platforms are much more siloed than on other platforms. Currently we restrict targeting for housing and education and credit verticals due to a history of discrimination. We should extend similar restrictions to political advertising.
4. Broader observance of the election silence periods
a. Observe election silence in compliance with local laws and regulations. Explore a self-imposed election silence for all elections around the world to act in good faith and as good citizens.
5. Spend caps for individual politicians, regardless of source
a. FB has stated that one of the benefits of running political ads is to help more voices get heard. However, high-profile politicians can out-spend new voices and drown out the competition. To solve for this, if you have a PAC and a politician both running ads, there would be a limit that would apply to both together, rather than to each advertiser individually.
6. Clearer policies for political ads
a. If FB does not change the policies for political ads, we need to update the way they are displayed. For consumers and advertisers, it’s not immediately clear that political ads are exempt from the fact-checking that other ads go through. It should be easily understood by anyone that our advertising policies about misinformation don’t apply to original political content or ads, especially since political misinformation is more destructive than other types of misinformation.
Therefore, the section of the policies should be moved from “prohibited content” (which is not allowed at all) to “restricted content” (which is allowed with restrictions).
We want to have this conversation in an open dialog because we want to see actual change.
We are proud of the work that the integrity teams have done, and we don’t want to see that undermined by policy. Over the coming months, we’ll continue this conversation, and we look forward to working towards solutions together.
This is still our company.
from Mobile – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/336qc16
ORIGINAL CONTENT FROM: https://techcrunch.com/
0 notes
Text
Bras and the Breast Cancer Cover-Up
“Whom can you trust when your culture is the biggest enemy of your health? Can you trust your culture’s leading authorities? Can you trust your culture’s government? Can you trust your culture’s private industry?”
We asked those questions in 1995, at the end of our book, Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. Before writing our book, we sent details of our research to the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, President’s Cancer Panel, American Women’s Medical Association, National Organization for Women, National Women’s Health Network, and National Women’s Health Resource Center. There was no response. Not one. Given the lack of interest, we decided to publish our findings in a book, getting the information directly to the women who needed to hear it.
But are women getting the message?
It has been 12 years since our book was first published. Over that time, more than 500,000 women in the US alone have died from breast cancer, with another 2,000,000 having been diagnosed with this terrible disease — a disease that is in most cases preventable by simply loosening up or eliminating the bra. And yet, this lifesaving information has been actively suppressed and censored by the medical and lingerie industries.
Examples of Suppress and Censorship
A large public relations firm in New York City was willing and eager to help us release this information to the public. “My wife just had breast cancer, and I’m sure you are right,” the head of the firm confessed. A big media announcement and celebration were planned. Days later, however, the firm withdrew its offer to help, stating that one of their clients, a large medical center, objected to their working with us.
A Sydney, Australia public relations firm agreed to help publicize our work when we were doing outreach efforts in their country. But it, too, reversed itself. We had asked if they had any conflicts of interest, such as lingerie industry clients. They said they had none. But as it turned out, they did represent a pharmaceutical company that makes a breast cancer treatment drug, and the prevention of breast cancer and its treatment are in conflict, they explained.
The Intimate Apparel Council (which is the US trade association for the multi-billion dollar bra industry) threatened our publisher, Avery Publishing Group, with a lawsuit if Dressed To Kill was released. The publisher said the publicity would help spread the word. The lawsuit never materialized.
After the book was released, the NBC television news show, Dateline, was interested in doing a story on our work. We were extensively interviewed by a skeptical reporter who became a supporter. The story was then abruptly terminated. The producer confidentially explained that the policy of General Electric, which owns NBC, is to avoid airing news stories that can adversely impact on other GE interests. As it happens, GE is a manufacturer of mammography machines.
Women’s magazines, such as Glamour, Self, and others, ran critical stories condemning our work, and finding “experts” to encourage women to continue wearing bras. Elle magazine planned a positive story about the bra/cancer link, but was coerced into pulling the story by bra advertisers. In various newspapers around the world, such as the Guardian in the UK, stories were pulled prior to publication because of fear that they may “panic the public”, including their lingerie advertisers.
The British Fashion Council (which is the UK’s equivalent of the Intimate Apparel Council) published the Breast Health Handbook in 1996 to oppose our efforts. They announced the formation of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Foundation, which was to receive donations from bra sales to fund genetic research into breast cancer. The book criticized our work, claiming, “The idea that wearing a bra encourages cancer by trapping toxins was recently put forward by researchers at the Institute for Culturogenic Studies (sic) in Hawaii. Researchers from more august establishments promptly dismissed it as claptrap.” Without any medical evidence or research, the book informs women that wearing bras is a health necessity, and should be worn as early in life as possible to prevent breast damage.
Our original publisher, Avery, was purchased by giant Penguin Putnam in 1998. The new publisher did not list the book for three years and refused to revert publication rights to the copyright holders, Singer and Grismaijer. The book was virtually unavailable, and it was thought to have gone out of print. Finally, after repeated requests, the publishing rights were released to us in October, 2001. (ISCD Press has been keeping it in print since then.)
A television documentary was produced in the year 2000 by Channel 4 in the UK, called, Bras- The Bare Facts. In the documentary, 100 women with fibrocystic breast disease went bra-free for 3 months to document the effect on breast cysts and pain. Two prominent British breast surgeons conducted the study. The results were astounding, and clearly demonstrated that the bra is a serious health hazard. We were interviewed for the program to discuss the bra/cancer connection, which was considered highly plausible and important by the doctors interviewed. Some theorized that, in addition to lymphatic impairment, the bra could also cause cancer by overheating the breasts. The documentary made newspaper headlines in British Commonwealth countries throughout the world, but no mention of it was made at all in the US. The following day, headlines in the U.K. tried to suppress fears of the bra/cancer link, and the doctors in the study quickly distanced themselves from the cancer issue, telling women to continue wearing bras. Their research for the documentary was supposed to be published in a medical journal, but never was. And no further research ever materialized to follow-up on their work, which they said they would do. Extensive news coverage of the program was available on the Internet soon after it aired, but most articles were removed shortly thereafter.
No follow-up studies have been done to refute or confirm our research. None. While a Harvard study, published in the European Journal of Cancer in 1991, discovered that bra-free women have a lower rate of breast cancer, the results were not central to the research they were conducting and were considered unimportant and not followed-up. In fact, apart from our initial 1991-93 Bra and Breast Cancer Study, discussed in detail in Dressed To Kill, and our follow-up research in Fiji, discussed in our book, Get It Off!, there are still no other studies on the bra/cancer link. Not even a letter or discussion of the issue can be found in any medical journal. After decades of breast cancer research, the bra is still completely ignored as even being a potential factor for consideration. It’s like studying foot disease and ignoring shoes.
Keeping the Public Mystified
This lack of research, and the consequent ignorance, are then used by cancer organizations to justify further suppression of the issue. As the American Cancer Society states on its website, (ignoring the Harvard study), “There are no scientifically valid studies that show a correlation between wearing bras of any type and the occurrence of breast cancer. Two anthropologists made this association in a book called Dressed To Kill. Their study was not conducted according to standard principles of epidemiological research and did not take into consideration other variables, including known risk factors for breast cancer. There is no other, credible research to validate this claim in any way.” And they don’t seem interested in funding any such studies in the near future, either. There are other organizations that are similarly critical of the bra/cancer link for lack of research evidence, while at the same time discouraging any research on the subject.
Of particular interest is when breast cancer organizations antagonistic to the issue declare the bra/cancer link to be “misinformation” or a “myth”, without any scientific study supporting their claims. They say bras are important for women to wear for support, without any evidence showing bras are safe or necessary. They then encourage regular mammograms, cancer prevention drug therapy (not realizing that “prevention therapy” is an oxymoron), and even preventative mastectomies (which means that those who are high risk for breast cancer but who don’t want to get it can have their breast removed as a prevention strategy). Of course, it is better to remove the bra instead of the breasts, but bra removal is not a billable procedure.
Keep in mind that bras have been associated with other health problems, such as headaches, numbness in the hands, backache and other postural problems, cysts, pain, skin depigmentation, and more. And lymphatic blockage, which is the result of bra constriction, has already been associated with various cancers. Clearly, the bra/cancer link needs further research, while women take the precaution of loosening up.
Why the resistance?
What harm could there be in following our simple advice, or in even researching this issue? Why the defensive reaction?
There are three reasons:
1. The bra industry fears class action lawsuits. Many insiders have admitted to us that for years the industry suspected underwires were causing cancer. They know that tight bras cause cysts and pain. It is only a matter of time until a lawsuit is made against a bra manufacturer. As a defense, the industry is shifting the blame to the customer, claiming that most women are wearing their bras too tightly, and should get professional fittings. (How do you get a properly fitted push-up bra?) Breaking ranks with their industry peers, and trying to capitalize on the bad news, are several bra manufacturers that now offer newly patented bras claiming to mitigate the damage, including cancer, caused by conventional bras.
2. The medical industry is making billions each year on the detection and treatment of breast cancer. As mentioned above, there is a conflict between the prevention and the treatment of disease, especially if the prevention does not include drugs or surgery. The fact is that our treatment-focused, profit-oriented medical system is making a killing treating this disease, and has billions to lose if breast cancer goes out of fashion along with bras.
In addition, the bra issue will revolutionize the breast cancer field, embarrassing many researchers. Breast cancer research to date that has ignored the bra issue is seriously flawed as a result, which is why the “experts” are still unable to explain the cause of over 70% of all breast cancer cases. Career cancer researchers who have ignored the bra issue will have to admit this fatal flaw in their work, which they are not inclined to admit in their lifetimes.
3. Finally, there is the dogmatic, fearful resistance from some women who find their personal identity so connected to their bras that they would rather risk cancer than be bra-free (which some women have actually told us.) Women are cultural entities, and so long as our culture scorns a natural bustline, many women will submit to the pain, red marks and indentations, cysts, and even the threat of cancer rather than face potential public ridicule (which never really happens.)
There are also women who believe the myth that bras will prevent droopy breasts. The bra industry admits this is a myth, while it still promotes it to improve sales. In fact, bras cause breasts to droop, as the breasts become dependent on the bra for support and the natural supportive mechanisms atrophy from non use.
Despite the resistance, however, some women have gotten the message. And many health care professionals, who have also suspected bras for years, are now spreading that message. As women hear the news and discover that eliminating the bra also eliminates cysts and pain, the news further spreads by word of mouth.
There are now thousands of websites on this subject, many from health care professionals including medical doctors, naturopathic doctors, osteopathic doctors, chiropractors, massage therapists, lymphatic specialists, nutritionists, and others who care about women and helping end this epidemic. Grassroots efforts to keep this information alive and spreading have supplanted the traditional medical research approach, which has disqualified itself for lack of interest and conflict of interest.
When a disease is caused by the culture and its habits, attitudes, fashions and industries, there is bound to be resistance to change. Industries that contribute to disease will be defensive, and industries that profit from disease will be conflicted. However, the truth has a way of getting out, despite the resistance and suppression. Thank Goodness the truth does have a way of getting out.
Source by Sydney Ross Singer
from Home Solutions Forev https://homesolutionsforev.com/bras-and-the-breast-cancer-cover-up/
via Home Solutions on WordPress
from Home Solutions FOREV https://homesolutionsforev.tumblr.com/post/187161896720
via Tim Clymer on Wordpress
0 notes
Text
Bras and the Breast Cancer Cover-Up
“Whom can you trust when your culture is the biggest enemy of your health? Can you trust your culture’s leading authorities? Can you trust your culture’s government? Can you trust your culture’s private industry?”
We asked those questions in 1995, at the end of our book, Dressed To Kill: The Link Between Breast Cancer and Bras. Before writing our book, we sent details of our research to the National Cancer Institute, American Cancer Society, President’s Cancer Panel, American Women’s Medical Association, National Organization for Women, National Women’s Health Network, and National Women’s Health Resource Center. There was no response. Not one. Given the lack of interest, we decided to publish our findings in a book, getting the information directly to the women who needed to hear it.
But are women getting the message?
It has been 12 years since our book was first published. Over that time, more than 500,000 women in the US alone have died from breast cancer, with another 2,000,000 having been diagnosed with this terrible disease — a disease that is in most cases preventable by simply loosening up or eliminating the bra. And yet, this lifesaving information has been actively suppressed and censored by the medical and lingerie industries.
Examples of Suppress and Censorship
A large public relations firm in New York City was willing and eager to help us release this information to the public. “My wife just had breast cancer, and I’m sure you are right,” the head of the firm confessed. A big media announcement and celebration were planned. Days later, however, the firm withdrew its offer to help, stating that one of their clients, a large medical center, objected to their working with us.
A Sydney, Australia public relations firm agreed to help publicize our work when we were doing outreach efforts in their country. But it, too, reversed itself. We had asked if they had any conflicts of interest, such as lingerie industry clients. They said they had none. But as it turned out, they did represent a pharmaceutical company that makes a breast cancer treatment drug, and the prevention of breast cancer and its treatment are in conflict, they explained.
The Intimate Apparel Council (which is the US trade association for the multi-billion dollar bra industry) threatened our publisher, Avery Publishing Group, with a lawsuit if Dressed To Kill was released. The publisher said the publicity would help spread the word. The lawsuit never materialized.
After the book was released, the NBC television news show, Dateline, was interested in doing a story on our work. We were extensively interviewed by a skeptical reporter who became a supporter. The story was then abruptly terminated. The producer confidentially explained that the policy of General Electric, which owns NBC, is to avoid airing news stories that can adversely impact on other GE interests. As it happens, GE is a manufacturer of mammography machines.
Women’s magazines, such as Glamour, Self, and others, ran critical stories condemning our work, and finding “experts” to encourage women to continue wearing bras. Elle magazine planned a positive story about the bra/cancer link, but was coerced into pulling the story by bra advertisers. In various newspapers around the world, such as the Guardian in the UK, stories were pulled prior to publication because of fear that they may “panic the public”, including their lingerie advertisers.
The British Fashion Council (which is the UK’s equivalent of the Intimate Apparel Council) published the Breast Health Handbook in 1996 to oppose our efforts. They announced the formation of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer Foundation, which was to receive donations from bra sales to fund genetic research into breast cancer. The book criticized our work, claiming, “The idea that wearing a bra encourages cancer by trapping toxins was recently put forward by researchers at the Institute for Culturogenic Studies (sic) in Hawaii. Researchers from more august establishments promptly dismissed it as claptrap.” Without any medical evidence or research, the book informs women that wearing bras is a health necessity, and should be worn as early in life as possible to prevent breast damage.
Our original publisher, Avery, was purchased by giant Penguin Putnam in 1998. The new publisher did not list the book for three years and refused to revert publication rights to the copyright holders, Singer and Grismaijer. The book was virtually unavailable, and it was thought to have gone out of print. Finally, after repeated requests, the publishing rights were released to us in October, 2001. (ISCD Press has been keeping it in print since then.)
A television documentary was produced in the year 2000 by Channel 4 in the UK, called, Bras- The Bare Facts. In the documentary, 100 women with fibrocystic breast disease went bra-free for 3 months to document the effect on breast cysts and pain. Two prominent British breast surgeons conducted the study. The results were astounding, and clearly demonstrated that the bra is a serious health hazard. We were interviewed for the program to discuss the bra/cancer connection, which was considered highly plausible and important by the doctors interviewed. Some theorized that, in addition to lymphatic impairment, the bra could also cause cancer by overheating the breasts. The documentary made newspaper headlines in British Commonwealth countries throughout the world, but no mention of it was made at all in the US. The following day, headlines in the U.K. tried to suppress fears of the bra/cancer link, and the doctors in the study quickly distanced themselves from the cancer issue, telling women to continue wearing bras. Their research for the documentary was supposed to be published in a medical journal, but never was. And no further research ever materialized to follow-up on their work, which they said they would do. Extensive news coverage of the program was available on the Internet soon after it aired, but most articles were removed shortly thereafter.
No follow-up studies have been done to refute or confirm our research. None. While a Harvard study, published in the European Journal of Cancer in 1991, discovered that bra-free women have a lower rate of breast cancer, the results were not central to the research they were conducting and were considered unimportant and not followed-up. In fact, apart from our initial 1991-93 Bra and Breast Cancer Study, discussed in detail in Dressed To Kill, and our follow-up research in Fiji, discussed in our book, Get It Off!, there are still no other studies on the bra/cancer link. Not even a letter or discussion of the issue can be found in any medical journal. After decades of breast cancer research, the bra is still completely ignored as even being a potential factor for consideration. It’s like studying foot disease and ignoring shoes.
Keeping the Public Mystified
This lack of research, and the consequent ignorance, are then used by cancer organizations to justify further suppression of the issue. As the American Cancer Society states on its website, (ignoring the Harvard study), “There are no scientifically valid studies that show a correlation between wearing bras of any type and the occurrence of breast cancer. Two anthropologists made this association in a book called Dressed To Kill. Their study was not conducted according to standard principles of epidemiological research and did not take into consideration other variables, including known risk factors for breast cancer. There is no other, credible research to validate this claim in any way.” And they don’t seem interested in funding any such studies in the near future, either. There are other organizations that are similarly critical of the bra/cancer link for lack of research evidence, while at the same time discouraging any research on the subject.
Of particular interest is when breast cancer organizations antagonistic to the issue declare the bra/cancer link to be “misinformation” or a “myth”, without any scientific study supporting their claims. They say bras are important for women to wear for support, without any evidence showing bras are safe or necessary. They then encourage regular mammograms, cancer prevention drug therapy (not realizing that “prevention therapy” is an oxymoron), and even preventative mastectomies (which means that those who are high risk for breast cancer but who don’t want to get it can have their breast removed as a prevention strategy). Of course, it is better to remove the bra instead of the breasts, but bra removal is not a billable procedure.
Keep in mind that bras have been associated with other health problems, such as headaches, numbness in the hands, backache and other postural problems, cysts, pain, skin depigmentation, and more. And lymphatic blockage, which is the result of bra constriction, has already been associated with various cancers. Clearly, the bra/cancer link needs further research, while women take the precaution of loosening up.
Why the resistance?
What harm could there be in following our simple advice, or in even researching this issue? Why the defensive reaction?
There are three reasons:
1. The bra industry fears class action lawsuits. Many insiders have admitted to us that for years the industry suspected underwires were causing cancer. They know that tight bras cause cysts and pain. It is only a matter of time until a lawsuit is made against a bra manufacturer. As a defense, the industry is shifting the blame to the customer, claiming that most women are wearing their bras too tightly, and should get professional fittings. (How do you get a properly fitted push-up bra?) Breaking ranks with their industry peers, and trying to capitalize on the bad news, are several bra manufacturers that now offer newly patented bras claiming to mitigate the damage, including cancer, caused by conventional bras.
2. The medical industry is making billions each year on the detection and treatment of breast cancer. As mentioned above, there is a conflict between the prevention and the treatment of disease, especially if the prevention does not include drugs or surgery. The fact is that our treatment-focused, profit-oriented medical system is making a killing treating this disease, and has billions to lose if breast cancer goes out of fashion along with bras.
In addition, the bra issue will revolutionize the breast cancer field, embarrassing many researchers. Breast cancer research to date that has ignored the bra issue is seriously flawed as a result, which is why the “experts” are still unable to explain the cause of over 70% of all breast cancer cases. Career cancer researchers who have ignored the bra issue will have to admit this fatal flaw in their work, which they are not inclined to admit in their lifetimes.
3. Finally, there is the dogmatic, fearful resistance from some women who find their personal identity so connected to their bras that they would rather risk cancer than be bra-free (which some women have actually told us.) Women are cultural entities, and so long as our culture scorns a natural bustline, many women will submit to the pain, red marks and indentations, cysts, and even the threat of cancer rather than face potential public ridicule (which never really happens.)
There are also women who believe the myth that bras will prevent droopy breasts. The bra industry admits this is a myth, while it still promotes it to improve sales. In fact, bras cause breasts to droop, as the breasts become dependent on the bra for support and the natural supportive mechanisms atrophy from non use.
Despite the resistance, however, some women have gotten the message. And many health care professionals, who have also suspected bras for years, are now spreading that message. As women hear the news and discover that eliminating the bra also eliminates cysts and pain, the news further spreads by word of mouth.
There are now thousands of websites on this subject, many from health care professionals including medical doctors, naturopathic doctors, osteopathic doctors, chiropractors, massage therapists, lymphatic specialists, nutritionists, and others who care about women and helping end this epidemic. Grassroots efforts to keep this information alive and spreading have supplanted the traditional medical research approach, which has disqualified itself for lack of interest and conflict of interest.
When a disease is caused by the culture and its habits, attitudes, fashions and industries, there is bound to be resistance to change. Industries that contribute to disease will be defensive, and industries that profit from disease will be conflicted. However, the truth has a way of getting out, despite the resistance and suppression. Thank Goodness the truth does have a way of getting out.
Source by Sydney Ross Singer
from Home Solutions Forev https://homesolutionsforev.com/bras-and-the-breast-cancer-cover-up/
via Home Solutions on WordPress
0 notes
Text
Making Censorship Respectable Again
For all his twits about Fake News and “Enemy of the People,” Trump hasn’t done more than make noise. Offensive as it may be to denigrate the Fourth Estate as evil, even a president gets to complain about things he dislikes, even if he does so in a way they dislike.
And in fairness, the media hasn’t always helped itself, replacing factual reporting with “advocacy journalism,” the mechanism of telling the news in such a way as to include only those parts the lead the public to the conclusion members of the media believe are “right.” Sometimes this means omitting inconvenient facts. Sometimes it means outright lying. In their defense, advocacy journalists argue that they don’t lie as much as Trump, and their cause is “just,” so no harm, no foul. But it’s not news. It’s not journalism. And Trump does it too.
Democratic candidate for president, Andrew Yang, whose big issue is Universal Basic Income of $1000 per month, payable in dollars rather than Cheetos, has come up with a new proposal: the creation of a position of News and Information Ombudsman. Apparently, the days of calling someone the Czar are over, and Ombudsman seems softer, kinder, as they wield the Ax of Truth.
The problem?
“Fake news” is a rampant problem. Online media market incentives reward ‘clickbait’ and controversy even as our social media feeds send us more and more outrageous stories to incite a reaction.
The rewards for publishing inflammatory content are high with no real penalty. At the extreme end, those who wish to misinform the American public can do so with little fear of repercussions. The lack of trusted news increasingly isolates us in information silos that hurt our democracy.
The key phrase in there is “with no real penalty.” After all, it’s uncontroversial to say “fake news” is a problem, but is the solution to impose a “real penalty”?
We must introduce both a means to investigate and punish those who are seeking to misinform the American public. If enough citizens complain about a particular source of information and news is demonstrably and deliberately false, there should be penalties. I will appoint a new News and Information Ombudsman with the power to fine egregious corporate offenders. One of the main purposes of the Ombudsman will be to identify sources of spurious information that are associated with foreign nationals. The Ombudsman will work with social media companies to identify fraudulent accounts and disable and punish responsible parties. The Ombudsman will be part of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).
There are two curious components to this proposal. The first is obvious, the idea that the government will be in charge of deciding “true news” from “fake news” at all. Yang graduated from Columbia Law School in 1999, so he must have taken Con Law and, presumably, was there the day they talked about the First Amendment. Of course, he may be of the living Constitution view, so that the freedom of the press is inviolate as long as it’s the right press, because why would the First Amendment protect news that was just wrong?!?
But the second curious piece is that this New Czar (sorry, old habits die hard) wouldn’t require a new law, a new federal agency, any approval of Congress whatsoever. It would be created with the stroke of a pen, maybe a text message, within the existing agency, the Federal Communications Commission. There are already tons of rules and regs, all enforceable at the end of a gun, and surely they could shoehorn the Censor in Chief in there somehow.
Bad idea? Silly idea? Of course it is, and nobody except the kids in the basement eating Cheetos would ever consider Andrew Yang for president, so who cares what he proposes? But this isn’t about Yang getting the nod, or the imminent creation of a New Czar. This is about the Overton Window.
The Overton window is the range of ideas tolerated in public discourse,
For a few years now, the attack on speech has been waged with astounding success. The low-hanging fruit went first, with “hate speech” being the easiest sell, but also tiny slices like “harassment” and “revenge porn” being peeled off by claims of how hurt feelings are traumatic, so something must be done. In other words, this has been building, normalizing, for years.
And finding acceptability on a piecemeal basis, for anyone who would question the criminalization of such horrifying and socially damaging speech is relegated to the Nazi side of the binary. There is no spectrum, anymore, as you’re either a social justice warrior or a racist, sexist, etc. Are you one of those awful “free speech absolutists” who run around using horrible words?
But this is just some whackadoodle named Yang, one of the 435 candidates running for the Dem nomination, so who cares? First, that a proposal of such outrageously unconstitutional dimensions would find its way into a candidate’s platform speaks to where the Overton Window is today. Censorship has gained respectability, at least sufficiently to be part of acceptable political discourse.
But second, it’s not just Yang plus a few crazies with their respective axes to grind. In the New York Times, Sarah Jeong* writes about how Mark Zuckerberg is ready to hand over the “trash botton” at Facebook to someone getting a government paycheck, thus taking the burden off him to do the dirty work and, far more importantly, removing his platform from the line of fire for whatever censorship comes of it. After all, Zuck doesn’t care what gets censored, as long as you keep using Facebook, he gets his ad revenue and he doesn’t have to appear before Congress to explain why he didn’t do more to prevent the Ruskies from buying ads.
Jeong says it’s not going to happen in the United States, even as it’s happening in Europe already, where there is no First Amendment equivalent.
We’re not likely to see a Facebook Supreme Court — not an American one, in any event. The Hays Code died after the First Amendment was extended to movies; a Hays Code for the internet will probably be dead on arrival.
Much as Jeong’s capacity to reason hasn’t improved with her new job, not only is her leap of faith suspect, but her blithe dismissal of a future where some analogue of the the Hays Code isn’t instituted, but applauded by the woke, may be wishful thinking. If the notion of a Censorship Czar can be part of reasonable political discourse, and the powerful like Zuck support it due to enlightened self-interest, not only is it possible, but respectable. After all, you’re not one of those Free Speech Absolutist Nazi racists, sexists who supports hate speech and white supremacy, are you?
*Is this her first by-lined op-ed since her hiring as a member of the Editorial Board, and subsequent castigation for the revelation of her performative twitting about how she hates white men.
Making Censorship Respectable Again republished via Simple Justice
0 notes
Text
The Un-Making of the West, Vol. III: Behead Those Who Say Islam is Violent
In Europe, approximately five percent of Sweden’s population consists of Muslim males, and yet they account for 77% of total rapes in that country; by one estimate, 95% of all crime in Sweden is committed by “migrants.” In one year alone, the number of sexual assaults committed by “migrants” living in Austria jumped 133% from 2015 to 2016. In 2015, again, in one year alone, crimes committed by Muslim migrants in Germany jumped 79%. In the first six months of 2016, Muslims migrants committed an average of 780 crimes a day. 56% of the Syrian migrants living in Britain have committed crimes within the last year. Over three quarters of the crime committed in Denmark’s capital, Copenhagen, is by these “migrants.” Roughly 6% of Belgium’s population is Muslim, but 35% of its prison population is. 8-10% of France’s population is Muslim, but estimates ranging from 40-70% of their prison population is. Around 4% of Spain’s population is Muslim, but 70% of its prison population is. A majority of Britain’s prison population is now Muslim. Nine out of the ten most “criminally inclined” ethnic groups in Europe hail from Muslim-majority nations.
(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817585113717094,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7788-6480"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");
In Australia, Victoria police stated that in 2012 Sudanese (0.1% of the population) and Somali (0.05% of the population) immigrants were approximately five times more likely to commit crimes than other state residents. The rate of offending was 1301.0 per 100,000 for native Australians in Victoria, whereas for the Sudanese it was 7109.1 per 100,000 individuals and 6141.8 per 100,000 for Somalis. The Sudanese and Somalis seem to have a particular affinity for assault, which represents 29.5% for Sudanese and 24.3% for Somalis of their offences. Three years later, Victoria police data showed that male Sudanese “youths” were “vastly over-represented” in criminal behavior, responsible for 7.44% of home invasions, 5.65% of car thefts, and 13.9% of aggravated robberies. Again, keep in mind the Sudanese are 0.1% of Victoria’s population, and young males are only maybe a quarter to a sixth of that 0.1%. That is an astounding overrepresentation. In January 2018, Acting Chief Commissioner Shane Patton stated that, “We have for a significant period of time said that there is an issue with overrepresentation by African youth in serious and violent offending as well as public disorder issues.” Victoria Police noticed youth offending "go to a new level" in 2016, and the State Government responded by:
Adding resources to the gangs squad and special operations group
Recruiting 3,135 additional frontline police
Funding an intelligence system, bulletproof vehicles and other technology and resources.
Fretting over diversity makes permissible the fact that Muslims account for 1% of the U.S. population but 40% of its workplace discrimination claims. That’s the erosion of your social capital at work! The United States issues over 1.6 million green cards to people from Muslim-majority nations between 2001 and 2013. From the Office of Refugee Resettlement Annual Report to Congress Fiscal Year 2013, we know that 19.7% of Middle Eastern refugees get public housing, 68.3% receive cash assistance, 73.1% get Medicaid or RMA, and 91.4% receive food stamps. Muslims have been responsible for a full third of mass shootings over the past half-decade yet we are told to fear conservative Christians. We also get the benefit of Islam’s progressivism; as Abul Ala Mawdudi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, in what can also be read as a ringing endorsement for identity politics pledges:
All those who are born of Muslim lineage will be considered to be Muslim, they will be subject to all Islamic laws, they will be compelled to perform the religious duties and obligations, and then whoever steps outside the fold of Islam will be executed. Following this announcement utmost effort should be made to save as many sons and daughters born of Muslims as possible from the lap of kafir. Then whoever cannot be saved by any means should be cut off and cast away, sadly but firmly, from his society forever. After this act of purification a new life for Islamic society may begin.
After all, It is not like a 1,400-year-and-counting jihad waged against Christendom has now been welcomed to our shores with open arms! This “purification” is nothing less than the implementation of sharia law in all of its repressive, regressive glory. As the American mouthpiece for sharia law proponents, Left-wing darling Linda Sarsour was recently named one of Glamour magazine’s Women of the Year for her organizing role in the George Soros-funded “intersectional” Women’s March in New York City this past year, representing further proof that the Left and Islam are bedfellows in one of the most hideous, appalling manifestations of ignorance and irrationality I’ve ever seen. As Ayaan Hirsi Ali notes:
The identity politics of our time has created a language of political correctness that sometimes verges on censorship. We have allowed the voice of the group, or whoever claims to represent the group, not only to speak for the individual, but sometimes to shout down the individual if his or her story does not fit with an approved narrative. We claim to fight for women’s rights, but we are not supposed to talk about the immense suffering of women in the Middle East because that might be construed as being offensive to Muslims. We are witnessing a major cultural shift in support for gay marriage across the West, but Iran remains beyond our criticism, even as the regime hangs gays, because that might be condemned as Islamophobic.
That’s right, even if you’re gay, you better shut your fucking mouth and accept that you’ve been superseded in the oppression hierarchy by Muslims, who ironically want to oppress and even better kill you. If you are gay, you must accept the implementation of “intersectional” sharia with nary a protestation! Don’t question the crater-sized blind spots and leaps in logic it takes to get to the point where, as Bruce Bawer informs us:
[In] the current progressive pecking order among officially recognized oppressed groups gays (especially affluent white gay American males) are at the bottom of the ladder; Muslims are at the very top. Which means that when gays criticize Islam, a decent progressive is supposed to scream “Islamophobe”; but when Muslims drop gays to their deaths off the roofs of buildings, one is expected to look away and change the topic…So it is that we end up seeing grotesquely absurd pictures of gay people waving banners that decry Islamophobia or that declare gay solidarity with Palestine.
Islam does not proscribe the killing of homosexuals; the only textual disagreements regard how the homosexuals should be killed. And I quote: (from the Quran 7:80-84) “For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds.... And we rained down on them a shower (of brimstone).” Lest you think I’m cherry-picking, this story is repeated at three other junctures in the Quran: 15:74, 27:58, and 29:40. Ali threw a “sodomite” from a minaret, and Abu Bakr burned a gay man at the stake. Good stuff.
If we listen to British imam Allama Muhammad Farooq Nazimi, it is clear that, “There is absolutely no doubt about it that the punishment for the person who shows disrespect for the Prophet is death,” so being even mildly critical of or satirizing Muhammad is a death sentence (see: Charlie Hebdo). By the way, the same television network (Noor TV) that aired Nazimi’s Koranic interpretations also literally sold indulgences and asked viewers to make donations of £1,000 in return for the “special gift” of dirt from Muhammad’s tomb! We wonder why homophobic attacks are on the rise in the West; it can’t possibly have anything to do with mass immigration from the Muslim world and Islam’s antipathy toward homosexuals, can it? According to the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooter Omar Mateen’s father, what likely set him off is that, “He saw two men kissing each other in front of his wife and kid and he got very angry,” while noting that the shooting “had nothing to do with religion.” Hillary Clinton concurs: “Let’s be clear: Islam isn’t our enemy. Hateful rhetoric against Muslims isn’t just wrong—it plays into terrorists’ hands.” Got it.
The head of CAIR’s Florida chapter, Hassan Shibly, went on a diatribe against homosexual marriage on Facebook while publicly claiming his “overwhelming love and support and unity” for and with the LGBTQ-AEIOU community. The CAIR-affiliated The Muslims of America, Inc. (TMOA), headed by one Mubarak Ali Gilani, called the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize gay marriage, “A black day in the history of mankind.” I obviously find Gilani’s use of the adjective “black” to be highly problematic, but not as problematic, perhaps, as Iranian Ayatollah Javadi-Amoli regards homosexuality and the Western politicians that allow homosexuals basic human dignity: “Even dogs and pigs don’t engage in this disgusting act, but yet [Western politicians] pass laws in favor of them in their parliaments.”
Even the Jews, who notoriously love this open-borders stuff for everywhere but Israel—“because in the future we might need it”—are getting a little uncomfortable with the proliferation of unkempt beards stalking the streets bellowing that they will “Strike terror in the enemies of Allah!” (Quran 8:60). Jewish gay porn actor and director Michael Lucas sees things a little differently:
Now that we are talking about Muslim homophobia, it is becoming very inconvenient for liberals because liberals are apologists for Islam. So it is becoming very inconvenient, and that is why they usually tie it to some specific person; specific bad leader.
Muslims, remember, love the Jews as much as they love they gays, if not more:
The Hour will not begin until the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims will kill them, until a Jew hides behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will say: O Muslim, O slave of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Except the gharqad (a thorny tree), for it is one of the trees of the Jews.
It appears that the issue is less to do with religion, and more to do with the fact that, as Michelle Obama recently stated, we are raising boys to be “entitled” and “self-righteous”.
youtube
The issue here is obviously toxic masculinity. Wait, scratch that: “The problem is not toxic masculinity; it’s that masculinity is toxic,” says Lisa Wade. How can we combat this crushing masculinity when the patriarchy has removed all agency from women and People of Color, or indeed if, as Wade vis-à-vis Raewyn Connell proclaims, “Men becoming more feminine and women becoming more masculine may produce gender equality, but it ‘may do just the reverse.’” In all seriousness, this statement is itself a closed loop, and by its very construction does not allow for a resolution. It is an excuse for perpetual grievance. Okay, back to the fun, per Wade: “We should be as suspicious of males who strongly identify as men as we are of white people who strongly identify as white.” Identity, it would seem, is only for a select group—the rest have no claim to identity politics, which, as I’ve written before, conforms to the notion of Leftism as a negation, or an ideology in negative.
(function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:10817587730962790,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-5979-7226"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.lockerdomecdn.com/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");
Nor should we want to be wholly tethered to the reductive aspects of identity, which is intensely personal and transcends “box-checking”; that said, as it pertains to group identity, the central premise of racial-civilizational identitarianism for all groups is that there is something special about their group that is worth preserving. It is about emphasizing the positive aspects of one’s race as it creates unique cultures and civilizations. “Identity politics” as practiced by the Left is an “identity-for-me-but-not-for-thee” which doubles as a straw-manning of everyone on the conservative or libertarian side of the political beliefs spectrum as “Alt-Right,” which is backfiring on them in spectacular fashion as it both gives the Alt-Right far more traction in the mainstream and it also drives people curious about what the Alt-Right may be to seek out its ideas. What’s more, by labeling anyone who dissents from Leftist orthodoxy a Nazi, a signal is sent that a person could think that by rights if the end result is going to be the same, they might as well go to the “extreme” rather than futz around in the middle. Why do the same amount of time for a minor crime? A full embrace of European-derived identity across the West is inevitable, but will it be too little too late?
Unfortunately, we are trying to combat ideologies that are fundamentally unreasonable, and the Left and its Islamist allies don’t appear to be backing down any time soon. They cannot, in fact, because the premise of their entire project hinges on Abul Ala Mawdudi’s “purification,” on the imposition of their divinely-received dictums which govern every aspect of life from hygiene to sex to diet. Nothing less than global subjugation will do. The question is, however, who will carry the day? Will it be the prancing trannies, or will their veneration of weakness generate a power vacuum to be filled by Islamic supremacists? Or are they both the dupes of someone else?
from Republic Standard | Conservative Thought & Culture Magazine https://ift.tt/2Noj7Sh
via IFTTT
0 notes
Text
Level Raw Chocolate Brownies-- Oh She Shines.
In the tryout tape, which was initially submitted to YouTube in 2012, however has actually due to the fact that gotten even more traction, the actor doesn't brood or even speak Drogo's native tongue, Dothraki. In The United States, chili powder commonly refers to the mixture from spices, generally cayenne, cumin, garlic particle, paprika, and also oregano, customarily used to period chili-- as in, the dish. You in the beginning get the sensation Rush Rally 2 is actually treading a fine collection, not sure whether to guide to being an arcade activity or even a simulation. While book 1 was perplexing along with their video game framework, this was something appealing as well as different.
Cumulative sales from the Pokémon computer game hit over 200 million copies - which's not featuring the Game Boys little ones acquired specifically for the video games. To aid buyers determine their passion in the upcoming game, we've collected a list of fifteen factors you have to understand before you purchase the game.
Yes, I carry out possess a lifestyle ... yet I truly enjoy your blog plus all from your impressive dishes a lot. I would like to find their universities and colleges where the young people from the country are proficiented in citizenship, manners, games as well as sports. Should you have any kind of issues with regards to where in addition to the way to employ click the next site, it is possible to call us from our site. I am only capable to listen to particular audio primarily no music in activities when I select anything on my receiver apart from 7 channel stereo. . This publication totally ASTOUNDED ME, calling to my heart and soul, as The Scorching Try CONSUMED ME off beginning to end.
I wasn't shocked to uncover that Miss Aveyard is in fact a film writer in addition to a publication author, after finishing this, for every thing in the narrative flowed and also was very clear, in addition to being brilliantly composed. 4 of The U.S.A.'s largest video game stores - Wal-Mart, Target, Greatest Buy and also Circuit Urban area - cleared away the game off their shelves. He did that just after long practices in his manufacturing facilities with 6 and 7 time job weeks, 8 to 12 hour work days.
The idea seemed to be to become exposed in Period 6 after our team ultimately got to find the Tower from Joy scene, and there was just one baby presented: Jon Snowfall However, similar to Jon Snowfall, the concept may be actually coming back from the lifeless. However in spite of this being one of the enduring greats, there is actually a true twist that's impossible to neglect: It's a five-year-old video game. Video game from Thrones fans yearning their personal Ghost, Nymeria or even Gray Wind might in luck.
Letters Regarding Literary works, funded by Center for guide in the Collection from Congress, motivates trainees to contact writers. That's certainly not to state that the quest hasn't already seen its allotment from incorrect beginnings as well as detours: Video game tournaments date back to the early 1970s, as well as tries to transform them right into watchable movie theater began as long ago as the very early 1980s. Gamings do not need academic verification to offer, however academic community needs to interact along with games so as to modernise its strategy to public history.
Concerning Blog post - Kinda from like meal, you certainly never understand just what you'll obtain, but there is actually commonly something really good! But this was actually the E3 2000 trailer - recreated on this webpage in the very best high quality offered online - that presented the world that PlayStation 2 was a powerful part from equipment, while the March 2001 launch of the usable demonstration confirmed that Kojima as well as his crew could supply.
I envy the capacity from my close friends to swerve in their assessment space as well as tell me an account which somehow was actually encouraged through something in guide they just reviewed, or even its blurb, or - god forbid today, in the property from GR restriction of anything that performs not look like a manual record - writer actions, the new terrifying censorship-causing phrase around, together with the now-used 'OFF SUBJECT' justification.
I even feel Microsoft mentioned old video games will certainly require patches to run far better on Scorpio than the X1. Excellent news is actually NEWER GAMING will offer the sophisticated increases on launch, s' all I actually care about tbh. Without any understanding from how the video game must end, they accidently topple hastily in to love.
Benediktsson's trips begin in the town from Akureyri, on Iceland's north shoreline, and also function numerous areas in the place around Pond Mývatn that will certainly be familiar to Activity of Thrones aficionados. I'll be truthful, between this book as well as Beyoncé revealing she is actually having doubles, I think that the world is actually trying to relieve the blow from Donald Trump's next executive order.
Obviously, along with game memory cards not assumed to keep much data on the unit on its own, it is actually supposed 32GB will definitely last an even though for those certainly not installing games electronically. Ubisoft delivered real-life historical figures into its Assassin's Creed titles, while future role-playing game Empire Come: Deliverance guarantees an accurate picture from Middle ages Europe. The problem along with gaming consoles is they never ever end up being everything yet something to conform of the instant. This is one of those 'rub your stomach, tap your head' titles that has you play two video games at once.
0 notes
Text
Things YOU Need to KNOW Right before Touring TO SINGAPORE Items YOU Should really KNOW Ahead of Touring TO SINGAPORE
The People’s Republic of China is an astounding nation, with an ancient background steeped in question and so many modern marvels to examine. This interesting and special country is the most populated region in the environment, as nicely as one particular of the biggest by land mass.
Numerous of the folks who reside below still abide by their conventional Chinese tradition, but the nation has often been at the forefront of innovation too, graduating far more science, technological innovation, engineering, and arithmetic students than any other state in the latest years.
You almost certainly currently know that China is the world’s longest continuous civilization, that its Great Wall is the major artifical composition on the world (but contrary to well known perception, is not seen from space), and the Silk Road is the oldest and longest trade route at any time even so, did you know that China is also dependable for the generation of our present day decimal and binary units, algebra, geometry, and the discovery of the human circulatory method?
Did you also know that 1.7 million pigs are eaten each day in China and that just one odd delicacy is ‘urine eggs’ which are eggs boiled for 24 hours in the urine of young boys? Neither did we! Below are ten much more remarkable facts about China that you probably did not know:
China has only a single time zone
In spite of being the third-greatest country in the globe by square mileage (China is nearly as vast as the US) and technically spanning 5 time zones, the whole state has operated less than a person single time zone because 1949, when ‘Beijing Typical Time’ was built official by the Communist Social gathering. That indicates when it is 6am in Beijing, it is also 6am across the other facet of the state – even even though the solar won’t rise for about 3 hours.
Most faculties, transportation solutions, and other Government providers in the westernmost location of Xinjiang obey Beijing time, even though quite a few nearby companies adhere to their have time. This suggests young children are going for walks to college by starlight, whilst afterwards, some locals are having caught up in hurry hour traffic… at 7pm!
Chinese new moms are intended to ‘sit’ for four weeks
You may have listened to that partners in China need to have to utilize for a ‘Family Arranging Certificate’ to have a little one, but did you know that after the birth, new mothers are usually intended to continue to be in confinement for a thirty day period?
This custom – named ‘Sitting the Month’ – entails the new mother resting in mattress for a month, not exposing herself to persons or any situations that may possibly result in strain, such as exertion, cold temperature, emotional strain, and ordinarily, even drinking water!
Being physically damp was imagined to pose a well being chance to the mom, as she may capture a chilly if she’s uncovered to these things as a result of bathing and hair washing. Luckily, averting h2o is a lot less often practiced these times, but moms (and in some cases fathers) nevertheless frequently participate.
The confinement is intended to give the mother relaxation and recuperate from the beginning, make sure equally her and her little one are not uncovered to unwanted threats, increase breastmilk output and improve the maternal bond.
Soccer was invented in China
The historic Chinese not only invented paper, gunpowder, printing and the compass, but they also invented the idea of soccer (or soccer, if you want). The game of ‘cuju’ – which usually means ‘kick the ball with foot’ – was frequently played during the Han Dynasty (206 BC-220 Advertisement). The attractiveness of cuju then distribute to neighboring countries and the rest is history!
You simply cannot accessibility western sites in China
Though China is unquestionably a charming nation with unsurpassed magnificence, fascinating heritage, and awesome individuals, the current Govt do not seriously want to dilute it all with western impact, so they have established a point out of large censorship, banning a lot of western web sites.
If you had been taking into consideration a pay a visit to to China, really do not be expecting to be in a position to search Google, Facebook, Twitter, Youtube or Reddit web-sites, just to identify a few – these have been blocked by what lots of have dubbed the ‘Great Firewall of China’.
The Federal government have even tried to block techniques for circumventing their firewall, including blocking the use of numerous VPNs. Luckily, it’s nonetheless actually simple to bypass this firewall making use of VPNs, but only if you know which ones nevertheless perform! If you want to know which VPNs to use to get by means of China’s firewall, take a look at vpnMentor’s article ‘9 Greatest (Still Working in 2019) VPNs for China – 3 Are No cost’ and enjoy some net independence in China.
The Chinese intensely censor their film field
There is no movie rating system in spot in China, but that doesn’t indicate it is a haven for 12-year-olds who want to observe grown ups only films. Films are censored for the exact explanations as the country’s net.
As a substitute of ratings, there is a 36-particular person committee who make certain nothing at all untoward or inappropriate helps make it by way of to Chinese audiences. When they discover anything too raunchy, violent, flamboyant or insulting to China, they merely slash the entire scene out of the film ahead of releasing it to the general public!
These cuts include the well known nude portray scene in Titanic becoming eliminated, a total minute of ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ being lower thanks to a gentleman-on-guy kissing scene and drug use, as well as 13 minutes of ‘Men In Black 3’ staying eradicated mainly because it highlighted an alien disguised as a Chinese particular person. If you are in China and want to view any censored films, you can use just one of the VPNs mentioned in this article.
Chinese manners are a small unique
Quite a few international locations think burping following a meal displays that the food was scrumptious and is a indicator of excellent manners, whilst other nations around the world really do not blink an eye at spitting in the streets. There are also a lot of people who really don’t assume yawning large or grunting are rude – in China, all of these are completely acceptable whilst ingesting!
Even additional intriguing is the country’s absence of diaper use. Older babies and toddlers who are capable to use a potty never wear them. In its place, they dress in unique pants with a break up in the rear and when they need to go potty, they squat anywhere they experience like it and go. We don’t just imply outdoors both. It’s suitable for the youngest Chinese citizens to poop or pee anywhere they really feel the require to, within or out!
China is total of cavemen
Not genuinely, but near! Because of to inheritance, tradition and occasionally poverty and lack of inexpensive housing, an estimated 35 million Chinese persons stay in caves. The vast majority stay in the yellow, porous cliffs and hillsides of the Loess plateau in Shaanxi province. The Government has tried to shift them on but the extended-time period inhabitants love their cave households and refuse to budge.
The Chinese do actually eat canine meat and also invented the initial ice cream
Most men and women have listened to the rumor that Chinese men and women consume pet dogs and this is actually no rumor. In the town of Yulin for 1 day for every year, the inhabitants celebrate the summer season solstice by taking in pet dogs bred for this purpose. The pet dog meat is eaten as a tradition that began 4000 several years ago.
Another historic tradition that began all around the exact time is the milk-primarily based treats that the Chinese invented, designed with yaks milk and rice and cooled with saltpeter (potassium nitrate) and snow poured on the exterior of the containers. Sure, these were the very first milk-primarily based ice treats most similar to what we now think of today as ice cream.
The Chinese are masters of war
You may possibly imagine that substantial fuel and chemical weapons are a fairly modern-day invention, but the Chinese were essentially the first to poison people on a mass scale, with incendiary weapons staying reportedly applied as early as 200BC in accordance to Sunlight Tzu’s ‘Art of War’.
There ended up also reviews of arsenic fuel bombs being made use of by the Chinese as early as 1000BC and their war background is littered with comparable references and hundreds of recipes for weapons of mass destruction, like the supernatural -sounding ‘soul-searching fog’. They may have also been the 1st place to use covert spy functions, as they invented kites to acquire military intelligence about 3000 a long time in the past.
The Art of War is alone a bible of warfare tactics and many strategies from the ebook are nevertheless made use of currently. Although the Chinese have generally been ruthless to their enemies, they are not entirely war oriented – Shanghai was the only port in the world who were being accepting Jewish men and women without having visas in the course of the holocaust.
China has the World’s biggest military
The Chinese aren’t only masters of war traditionally, but they are also well-prepared for any potential beat. The People’s Liberation Army offers the greatest number of troopers on the earth, with a lot more than 2 million troopers. It also has the second major defense pressure price range and is almost regarded a military services superpower.
from Cheapr Travels https://ift.tt/2RUnHeR
via https://ift.tt/2NIqXKN
0 notes
Text
Sweden's New Government Censorship
http://uniteordiemedia.com/swedens-new-government-censorship/ http://uniteordiemedia.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/the-wall-The-EU-600x464.jpg Sweden's New Government Censorship More from the globalist agenda to destabilize prosperous countries using mass immigration à la Joseph Stalin. …P.D. by Judith Bergman November 29, 2017 In the report, placing the word “refugees” in quotation marks, as well as “unaccompanied children,” is su...
More from the globalist agenda to destabilize prosperous countries using mass immigration à la Joseph Stalin. …P.D.
by Judith Bergman
November 29, 2017
In the report, placing the word “refugees” in quotation marks, as well as “unaccompanied children,” is supposedly an expression of “hate”. (Many, if not most, migrants classified as “unaccompanied children” have turned out to be grown men).
Government agencies are going out of their way to protect the “integrity” of possible jihadists out of concern for a “democratic society” — the society that these jihadists want to subvert and destroy — and are using their government platform to smear non-mainstream media for matters as small as the use of quotation marks. What about the “integrity” of Swedish citizens and their right to not be blown up?
Why is a municipality sponsoring an organization that supports terrorists and even awarding it prizes? It appears that glorifying terrorism is acceptable in Sweden, so long as its victims are the Israeli children. Far from countering “hate”, Sweden appears to be doing all it can to strengthen Muslim extremism.
The Swedish government is now officially questioning free speech. A government agency has declared so-called Swedish “new media” — news outlets that refuse to subscribe to the politically correct orthodoxies of the mainstream media — a possible threat to democracy. In a government report, tellingly called “The White Hatred” written by Totalförsvarets forskningsinstitut (Total Defense Research Institute), a government agency under the Swedish Ministry of Defense, Swedish new media such as Samhällsnytt (formerly known as Avpixlat), Nyheter Idag and Nya Tider are lumped together with neo-Nazi media such as Nordfront.
“Hate” is defined broadly to include violent extremism, “hateful expressions”, jokes, internet trolling and even the use of certain quotation marks. For instance, in the report, placing the word “refugees” in quotation marks, as well as “unaccompanied children,” is supposedly an expression of “hate”. (Many, if not most, migrants classified as “unaccompanied children” have turned out to be grown men).
“One might find,” according to the report’s conclusion, “that pluralism of information sources… is a positive addition in a democratic society where freedom of speech is an important foundation”, but “the new media… stretch the limits of free speech,” which “threatens other democratic values”. The report further alleges that society risks becoming tolerant of the intolerant. That is rather rich coming from the authorities of a European country that has accepted Islamic intolerance to an astounding degree. There is even a proposal from a government minister to reintegrate returning ISIS fighters, who might still wish to destroy the tolerant society that houses them.
The report is part of a series commissioned by the Swedish government to conduct quantitative mapping and analyses of violent extremist propaganda spread in Sweden by the internet and social media. The survey is supposed to include violent extremist environments in Sweden: right-wing extremism, left-wing extremism and Islamic extremism.
A previous report, “The Digital Caliphate,” supposedly looks at Islamic extremism, but is rendered useless in a Swedish context by explicitly refusing to engage with concrete ISIS propaganda in Sweden for “ethical” reasons:
“It is not in itself illegal to sympathize with violent ideologies. Our work is not about mapping the views of private people, as that would be incompatible with an open democratic society. Our analyses have therefore been limited to protect the integrity of private persons. No data has been collected from pages protected by passwords, closed Facebook pages or other types of Facebook pages or social media where the user has sought to keep the material within a closed group. All the material comes from open sources… this means that the material analyzed is limited as a large part of ISIS propaganda happens in closed channels…”
Government agencies in charge of national security, in other words, are going out of their way to protect the “integrity” of possible jihadists out of concerns for a “democratic society” — the society that these jihadists want to subvert and destroy. Meanwhile, these agencies are using their government platform to smear non-mainstream media for matters as small as the use of quotation marks. What about the “integrity” of Swedish citizens and their right to not be blown up? Furthermore, this desire to protect the privacy of potential jihadists means that the most vital part of the work — mapping the extent of Islamist violent propaganda in Sweden — is still left undone.
Sweden’s government agencies in charge of national security are going out of their way to protect the “integrity” of jihadists — people like Mikael Skråmo, a Swedish convert to Islam and jihadist who went to fight for ISIS in Syria, and urged Muslims in Sweden to bomb their workplaces.
At the same time, the Swedish establishment has its own private vigilante mob acting as the thought police. A 76,000-member closed Facebook group, called “Jagärhär” (“I am here”), is a private initiative founded by journalist Mina Dennert to attack opinions on social media with which its members disagree. “She noticed that there were people around us who had been frightened into believing all these images painted by ‘alternative media’ of people of foreign backgrounds as violent criminals… ” explains Dennert’s husband, one of the group’s administrators, who works for Swedish state television. The network has already won four prizes for its “work” in Sweden, including a prize from the Swedish group “Equalisters” (‘Rättviseförmedlingen’), which awarded the network their annual prize, naming it the group that had done the most for equality in 2016. Dennert was also awarded the Anna Lindh Prize.
The methods of “Jagärhär” vary. One tactic is to send mass complaints against a Facebook profile, causing it to be removed by the social media giant. This verdict by mob rule is what happened to the Swedish-Czech author Katerina Janouch, whose profile was shut down several times by Facebook — the apparent result of publishing, among other things, a satirical guide to political correctness. The network, which is one year old, is believed to be closely associated with Sweden’s national public television and the Social Democratic party.
Mina Dennert, also with close connections to the Swedish government, had her network apply for half a million Swedish kroner (nearly $60,000) government grant to support its work, which involved shutting down dissent on social media. Her network, however, recently withdrew its application after its dubious “work” had been revealed by none other than the new media in Sweden. The Jagärhär network has apparently inspired similar projects in other countries, such as #IchBinHier in Germany.
Meanwhile, Islamic extremists in Sweden continue their work. In Malmö, Group 194 — a Swedish-Muslim group that glorifies terrorism and actively sympathizes with the Arab terrorist group Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine(DFLP) — participated in one of the DFLP’s activities in Malmö in 2016. At the meeting, in which Swedish socialists apparently also participated, the participants reportedly celebrated the Ma’alot massacre, an Arab terrorist attack on an Israeli school in 1974 in which 115 hostages (including 105 children) were taken and 25 were murdered. The group, it seems, also routinely carries posters of Arab terrorists when it marches in the streets of Malmö on International Workers’ Day. Group 194’s entire work is focused on virulent anti-Israeli activism, as evidenced by its Facebook page. Sweden clearly has no problem with allowing hate speech from DFLP terrorists in Malmö.
This Swedish-Muslim group, bizarrely, is part of an initiative to make Malmö safe (Trygg Malmö or “Safe Malmö”). As part of this work, it is responsible for patrolling Rosengård — one of the most problematic no-go zones in Malmö — at night. The group was awarded SEK 10,000 (about $1,000) recently by the Malmö municipality — together with the other groups in Trygg Malmö — for its work in Rosengård. Why is a municipality sponsoring an organization that supports terrorists and even awarding it prizes? It appears that glorifying terrorism is acceptable in Sweden, so long as its victims are the Israeli children.
Originally, a Swedish administrative court, in a recent decision, ruled that there was no basis for denying the Muslim organization Young Muslims of Sweden (SUM) its state subsidy. Young Muslims of Sweden, which is connected to the Muslim Brotherhood, had been denied state subsidies by the Swedish Ministry of Youth and Civil Affairs, as Young Muslims of Sweden and its member organizations “have been identified as an environment” where some individuals do not respect the ideas of democracy. The Swedish court did not think that there was sufficient evidence for taking away the state subsidy, so Young Muslims of Sweden may soon find its activities funded by taxpayers once more.
Far from countering “hate”, Sweden appears to be doing all it can to strengthen Muslim extremism.
0 notes
Text
Cyberspace, secret of Chinese internet censorship?
New Post has been published on https://workreveal.biz/cyberspace-secret-of-chinese-internet-censorship/
Cyberspace, secret of Chinese internet censorship?
The delicate States Index, an annual file published by way of America think tank the Fund for Peace and the magazine Foreign Policy, defines a fragile state as one “whose vital authorities is so weak or ineffective that it has little sensible control over a good deal of its territory; non-provision of public offerings; sizable corruption and criminal activity; refugees and involuntary motion of populations and sharp financial decline”.
Some, but now not all, of this, maps smartly directly to our on-line world. There may be, in an instance, no central government that has effective control over the community’s “territory” (even though the USA, for true motives, has had more effect on it than any other country, a good deal to the annoyance of the Russians and the Chinese). In truth, one of the vital troubles posed using the community is that it is a global gadget in a Westphalian global of sovereign states and local laws.
Our quandary is that even as the future of our on-line world is unknowable, we need to reflect consideration on it because it impacts us all. The usual approach that large organisations and governments use for this cause is with the aid of imagining a fixed of viable futures or situations and assessing the implications of each one. The purpose isn’t to “are expecting” the future, however, to attempt to comic strip the range of possibilities that we would cope with.
As some distance as cyberspace is involved, the maximum thrilling set of eventualities I’ve seen come from a US think tank, the Atlantic Council. Its analyst, Jason Healey, sets out five applicants:
• Reputation quo: a continuation of what we now have. “our on-line world is commonly a safe place in which to do enterprise and to speak with others, despite the fact that criminals preserve to have interaction in multimillion-dollar heists and scouse borrow thousands and thousands of people’s personal info; countrywide Foreign intelligence groups poke and prod for army and industrial secrets.”
• Warfare area: an extrapolation of the militarisation of cyberspace that we already see – a world wherein cyber warfare becomes not unusual.
• Balkanisation: cyberspace has damaged into political fiefdoms: There’s no single internet, just a series of countrywide internets.
internet
• Paradise: cyberspace turns into an overwhelmingly sheltered area in which espionage, conflict and crime are rare. Chinese are ahead in that game.
• Cybergeddon: our on-line world degenerates into a digital failed state with all that that means. Suppose current-day Mogadishu.
Some these are greater fantastic than others. Healey’s “paradise” scenario is a natural fable. And the power of internet groups – plus the attain and dominance of country full intelligence groups inclusive of the NSA – recommend that A few form of the (likely repressive) order could be restored lengthy before “cybered on” could be reached.
So we’re left with real opportunities – Some combination of Balkanisation and inter-state Battle, both extrapolations of tendencies that we can already have a look at.
If that is certainly how things pan out, I recognise one scholar, a prominent professor of international relations, who won’t be inside the least amazed. 16 years in the past, in a conversation about the internet, he requested me if I sincerely believed that the web represented an essential challenge to mounted energy systems. I answered vehemently in the affirmative – due to the fact, in my techno-utopian fervour, I did agree with. He smiled but stated not anything, and so sooner or later I asked him what he thought. “We’ll see, dear boy,” he responded. “We’ll see.”
He’s still around, as wise as ever. And I’m an improving utopian.
In case you ever want to annoy Western policymakers or politicians, then here’s a surefire way to do it. Inform them that the only authorities in the global that is familiar with the internet are the Chinese communist regime. And If you want to feature a killer punch, upload the announcement that nearly the whole lot we Think we recognize about Chinese language control of the internet is either banal (all that stuff about the splendid firewall, paranoia about key phrases such as “Falun Gong”, “democracy”, and so forth) or simply simple wrong. Having, therefore, lit the fuse, retreat to a secure distance and enjoy the ensuing outburst of righteous indignation.
For the avoidance of doubt, this is not an apologia for the Chinese language regime, that’s as nasty and intolerant as they arrive. But it’s good to have a realistic view of 1’s adversaries. China’s leaders have invented a new manner of walking society. It’s been christened “networked authoritarianism” by way of Rebecca MacKinnon, a cited student of these items. President Xi Jinping and his colleagues are fans of Boris Johnson in as a minimum one recognise: they accept as true with that it’s far viable to have one’s cake and eat it too.
They want to modernise and energise and cyberspace China so that it may fulfil its future as a world energy. For that, they need it to transform their united states into a hyper-networked society. But however, they do no longer want democracy, with all its attendant nuisances together with human rights, governments sure by using the rule of thumb of regulation, transparency, responsibility and so on, and that they fear that the internet might also supply residents thoughts above their station. So they are determined to have the net, however also to control it. And this they may be doing with astounding success.
cyberspace
Most of what we recognise approximately how this networked authoritarianism works come from a smallish group of students. The brightest star in this specialised firmament is Gary King, who’s director of the Institute for Quantitative Social, technological know-how at Harvard. Years in the past, he and his colleagues posted a groundbreaking examine, published in the journal Science, which for the first time discovered how a way of the government censors Chinese social media.
The observe showed that, contrary to common Western knowledge, Chinese language social media is as raucous and chaotic as it’s far anywhere else, so the Daily Mail’s concept of a rustic full of timid, faceless human beings with most useful banal reviews is baloney.
The study additionally revealed, although, that these outlets are ruthlessly however astutely censored: what gets taken down, aside from the usual suspects which include Falun Gong, pornography, democracy and so on, are any posts that could conceivably stimulate joint motion, even when the posts are beneficial towards the authorities. You could say extra or less what you like in China, in different words, so long as not anything you assert might have the impact of getting people out onto the streets.
An obvious implication of this research became that the Chinese regime, aware of the difficulty of running a largely united state without the comments loops provided via democracy, is the use of the net to provide that feedback. It enables it to preserve a finger at the pulse of the society, as it were. If There may be central public situation about the corruption of neighbourhood officers in Some godforsaken province, as an instance, then tracking social media affords the centre with one kind of early caution machine.
There has been, but, one thing of Chinese language internet control that King’s have a look at did no longer touch, particularly the widespread perception that, in addition to passive tracking and censorship, the regime additionally employed legions of component-time bloggers and social media customers (maybe as many as 2 million) to submit stuff on the net that turned into beneficial to the government or refuted its critics. This becomes the “50c military” (these humans are supposedly paid 50 cents – or yuan equal – per put up). Now, in a brand new paper (forthcoming in the American Political Science Evaluation), King and his colleagues have turned their searchlight in this phenomenon.
chinese uning internet
Once again, their studies upend traditional knowledge. The 50c Navy does exist, they locate, however it’s no longer an element-time operation, and it’s greater resourceful than most people notion. King and co estimate that the Chinese language government fabricates and posts about 448m social media comments a year. But Additionally, they show that the underlying approach is to keep away from arguing with critics of the celebration and the authorities and to no longer even discuss debatable troubles. They, also, argue that the goal of this massive, undercover operation is, alternatively, “to distract the public and change the difficulty, as a maximum of these posts contains cheerleading for China, the modern records of the Communist celebration or other symbols of the regime”.
Sounds acquainted? In case you wanted a hashtag for the method, then #MCGA would do properly. It stands for “Make China terrific Again”. If Trump eventually falls out with Putin, he might locate A few kindred spirits in Beijing.
0 notes
Text
Facebook staff demand Zuckerberg limit lies in politcal ads
Submit campaign ads to fact checking, limit microtargeting, cap spending, observe silence periods, or at least warn users. These are the solutions Facebook employees put forward in an open letter pleading with CEO Mark Zuckerberg and company leadership to address misinformation in political ads.
The letter, obtained by the New York Times’ Mike Isaac, insists that “Free speech and paid speech are not the same thing . . . Our current policies on fact checking people in political office, or those running for office, are a threat to what FB stands for.” The letter was posted to Facebook’s internal collaboration forum a few weeks ago.
Facebook should ban campaign ads. End the lies.
The sentiments echo what I called for in a TechCrunch opinion piece on October 13th calling on Facebook to ban political ads. Unfettered misinformation in political ads on Facebook lets politicians and their supporters spread inflammatory and inaccurate claims about their views and their rivals while racking up donations to buy more of these ads.
The social network can still offer freedom of expression to political campaigns on their own Facebook Pages while limiting the ability of the richest and most dishonest to pay to make their lies the loudest. We suggested that if Facebook won’t drop political ads, they should be fact checked and/or use an array of generic “vote for me” or “donate here” ad units that don’t allow accusations. We also criticized how microtargeting of communities vulnerable to misinformation and instant donation links make Facebook ads more dangerous than equivalent TV or radio spots.
The Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, testified before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday October 23, 2019 Washington, D.C. (Photo by Aurora Samperio/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Over 250 employees of Facebook’s 35,000 staffers have signed the letter, that declares “We strongly object to this policy as it stands. It doesn’t protect voices, but instead allows politicians to weaponize our platform by targeting people who believe that content posted by political figures is trustworthy.” It suggests the current policy undermines Facebook’s election integrity work, confuses users about where misinformation is allowed, and signals Facebook is happy to profit from lies.
The solutions suggested include:
Don’t accept political ads unless they’re subject to third-party fact checks
Use visual design to more strongly differentiate between political ads and organic non-ad posts
Restrict microtargeting for political ads including the use of Custom Audiences since microtargeted hides ads from as much public scrutiny that Facebook claims keeps politicians honest
Observe pre-election silence periods for political ads to limit the impact and scale of misinformation
Limit ad spending per politician or candidate, with spending by them and their supporting political action committees combined
Make it more visually clear to users that political ads aren’t fact-checked
A combination of these approaches could let Facebook stop short of banning political ads without allowing rampant misinformation or having to police individual claims.
Facebook’s response to the letter was “We remain committed to not censoring political speech, and will continue exploring additional steps we can take to bring increased transparency to political ads.” But that straw-man’s the letter’s request. Employees aren’t asking politicians to be kicked off Facebook or have their posts/ads deleted. They’re asking for warning labels and limits on paid reach. That’s not censorship.
Zuckerberg had stood resolute on the policy despite backlash from the press and lawmakers including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). She left him tongue-tied during a congressional testimony when she asked exactly what kinds of misinfo were allowed in ads.
But then Friday Facebook blocked an ad designed to test its limits by claiming Republican Lindsey Graham had voted for Ocasio-Cortez’s Green Deal he actually opposes. Facebook told Reuters it will fact-check PAC ads
One sensible approach for politicians’ ads would be for Facebook to ramp up fact-checking, starting with Presidential candidates until it has the resources to scan more. Those fact-checked as false should receive an interstitial warning blocking their content rather than just a “false” label. That could be paired with giving political ads a bigger disclaimer without making them too prominent looking in general and only allowing targeting by state.
Deciding on potential spending limits and silent periods would be more messy. Low limits could even the playing field and broad silent periods especially during voting periods could prevent voter suppression. Perhaps these specifics should be left to Facebook’s upcoming independent Oversight Board that acts as a supreme court for moderation decisions and policies.
Zuckerberg’s core argument for the policy is that over time, history bends towards more speech, not censorship. But that succumbs to utopic fallacy that assumes technology evenly advantages the honest and dishonest. In reality, sensational misinformation spreads much further and faster than level-headed truth. Microtargeted ads with thousands of variants undercut and overwhelm the democratic apparatus designed to punish liars, while partisan news outlets counter attempts to call them out.
Zuckerberg wants to avoid Facebook becoming the truth police. But as we and employees have put forward, there a progressive approaches to limiting misinformation if he’s willing to step back from his philosophical orthodoxy.
The full text of the letter from Facebook employees to leadership about political ads can be found below, via the New York Times:
We are proud to work here.
Facebook stands for people expressing their voice. Creating a place where we can debate, share different opinions, and express our views is what makes our app and technologies meaningful for people all over the world.
We are proud to work for a place that enables that expression, and we believe it is imperative to evolve as societies change. As Chris Cox said, “We know the effects of social media are not neutral, and its history has not yet been written.”
This is our company.
We’re reaching out to you, the leaders of this company, because we’re worried we’re on track to undo the great strides our product teams have made in integrity over the last two years. We work here because we care, because we know that even our smallest choices impact communities at an astounding scale. We want to raise our concerns before it’s too late.
Free speech and paid speech are not the same thing.
Misinformation affects us all. Our current policies on fact checking people in political office, or those running for office, are a threat to what FB stands for. We strongly object to this policy as it stands. It doesn’t protect voices, but instead allows politicians to weaponize our platform by targeting people who believe that content posted by political figures is trustworthy.
Allowing paid civic misinformation to run on the platform in its current state has the potential to:
— Increase distrust in our platform by allowing similar paid and organic content to sit side-by-side — some with third-party fact-checking and some without. Additionally, it communicates that we are OK profiting from deliberate misinformation campaigns by those in or seeking positions of power.
— Undo integrity product work. Currently, integrity teams are working hard to give users more context on the content they see, demote violating content, and more. For the Election 2020 Lockdown, these teams made hard choices on what to support and what not to support, and this policy will undo much of that work by undermining trust in the platform. And after the 2020 Lockdown, this policy has the potential to continue to cause harm in coming elections around the world.
Proposals for improvement
Our goal is to bring awareness to our leadership that a large part of the employee body does not agree with this policy. We want to work with our leadership to develop better solutions that both protect our business and the people who use our products. We know this work is nuanced, but there are many things we can do short of eliminating political ads altogether.
These suggestions are all focused on ad-related content, not organic.
1. Hold political ads to the same standard as other ads.
a. Misinformation shared by political advertisers has an outsized detrimental impact on our community. We should not accept money for political ads without applying the standards that our other ads have to follow.
2. Stronger visual design treatment for political ads.
a. People have trouble distinguishing political ads from organic posts. We should apply a stronger design treatment to political ads that makes it easier for people to establish context.
3. Restrict targeting for political ads.
a. Currently, politicians and political campaigns can use our advanced targeting tools, such as Custom Audiences. It is common for political advertisers to upload voter rolls (which are publicly available in order to reach voters) and then use behavioral tracking tools (such as the FB pixel) and ad engagement to refine ads further. The risk with allowing this is that it’s hard for people in the electorate to participate in the “public scrutiny” that we’re saying comes along with political speech. These ads are often so micro-targeted that the conversations on our platforms are much more siloed than on other platforms. Currently we restrict targeting for housing and education and credit verticals due to a history of discrimination. We should extend similar restrictions to political advertising.
4. Broader observance of the election silence periods
a. Observe election silence in compliance with local laws and regulations. Explore a self-imposed election silence for all elections around the world to act in good faith and as good citizens.
5. Spend caps for individual politicians, regardless of source
a. FB has stated that one of the benefits of running political ads is to help more voices get heard. However, high-profile politicians can out-spend new voices and drown out the competition. To solve for this, if you have a PAC and a politician both running ads, there would be a limit that would apply to both together, rather than to each advertiser individually.
6. Clearer policies for political ads
a. If FB does not change the policies for political ads, we need to update the way they are displayed. For consumers and advertisers, it’s not immediately clear that political ads are exempt from the fact-checking that other ads go through. It should be easily understood by anyone that our advertising policies about misinformation don’t apply to original political content or ads, especially since political misinformation is more destructive than other types of misinformation.
Therefore, the section of the policies should be moved from “prohibited content” (which is not allowed at all) to “restricted content” (which is allowed with restrictions).
We want to have this conversation in an open dialog because we want to see actual change.
We are proud of the work that the integrity teams have done, and we don’t want to see that undermined by policy. Over the coming months, we’ll continue this conversation, and we look forward to working towards solutions together.
This is still our company.
from iraidajzsmmwtv https://ift.tt/2plzisq
via IFTTT
0 notes
Link
Submit campaign ads to fact checking, limit microtargeting, cap spending, observe silence periods, or at least warn users. These are the solutions Facebook employees put forward in an open letter pleading with CEO Mark Zuckerberg and company leadership to address misinformation in political ads.
The letter, obtained by the New York Times’ Mike Isaac, insists that “Free speech and paid speech are not the same thing . . . Our current policies on fact checking people in political office, or those running for office, are a threat to what FB stands for.” The letter was posted to Facebook’s internal collaboration forum a few weeks ago.
Facebook should ban campaign ads. End the lies.
The sentiments echo what I called for in a TechCrunch opinion piece on October 13th calling on Facebook to ban political ads. Unfettered misinformation in political ads on Facebook lets politicians and their supporters spread inflammatory and inaccurate claims about their views and their rivals while racking up donations to buy more of these ads.
The social network can still offer freedom of expression to political campaigns on their own Facebook Pages while limiting the ability of the richest and most dishonest to pay to make their lies the loudest. We suggested that if Facebook won’t drop political ads, they should be fact checked and/or use an array of generic “vote for me” or “donate here” ad units that don’t allow accusations. We also criticized how microtargeting of communities vulnerable to misinformation and instant donation links make Facebook ads more dangerous than equivalent TV or radio spots.
The Facebook CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, testified before the House Financial Services Committee on Wednesday October 23, 2019 Washington, D.C. (Photo by Aurora Samperio/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Over 250 employees of Facebook’s 35,000 staffers have signed the letter, that declares “We strongly object to this policy as it stands. It doesn’t protect voices, but instead allows politicians to weaponize our platform by targeting people who believe that content posted by political figures is trustworthy.” It suggests the current policy undermines Facebook’s election integrity work, confuses users about where misinformation is allowed, and signals Facebook is happy to profit from lies.
The solutions suggested include:
Don’t accept political ads unless they’re subject to third-party fact checks
Use visual design to more strongly differentiate between political ads and organic non-ad posts
Restrict microtargeting for political ads including the use of Custom Audiences since microtargeted hides ads from as much public scrutiny that Facebook claims keeps politicians honest
Observe pre-election silence periods for political ads to limit the impact and scale of misinformation
Limit ad spending per politician or candidate, with spending by them and their supporting political action committees combined
Make it more visually clear to users that political ads aren’t fact-checked
A combination of these approaches could let Facebook stop short of banning political ads without allowing rampant misinformation or having to police individual claims.
Zuckerberg had stood resolute on the policy despite backlash from the press and lawmakers including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). She left him tongue-tied during a congressional testimony when she asked exactly what kinds of misinfo were allowed in ads.
But then Friday Facebook blocked an ad designed to test its limits by claiming Republican Lindsey Graham had voted for Ocasio-Cortez’s Green Deal he actually opposes. Facebook told Reuters it will fact-check PAC ads
One sensible approach for politicians’ ads would be for Facebook to ramp up fact-checking, starting with Presidential candidates until it has the resources to scan more. Those fact-checked as false should receive an interstitial warning blocking their content rather than just a “false” label. That could be paired with giving political ads a bigger disclaimer without making them too prominent looking in general and only allowing targeting by state.
Deciding on potential spending limits and silent periods would be more messy. Low limits could even the playing field and broad silent periods especially during voting periods could prevent voter suppression. Perhaps these specifics should be left to Facebook’s upcoming independent Oversight Board that acts as a supreme court for moderation decisions and policies.
Zuckerberg’s core argument for the policy is that over time, history bends towards more speech, not censorship. But that succumbs to utopic fallacy that assumes technology evenly advantages the honest and dishonest. In reality, sensational misinformation spreads much further and faster than level-headed truth. Microtargeted ads with thousands of variants undercut and overwhelm the democratic apparatus designed to punish liars, while partisan news outlets counter attempts to call them out.
Zuckerberg wants to avoid Facebook becoming the truth police. But as we and employees have put forward, there a progressive approaches to limiting misinformation if he’s willing to step back from his philosophical orthodoxy.
The full text of the letter from Facebook employees to leadership about political ads can be found below, via the New York Times:
We are proud to work here.
Facebook stands for people expressing their voice. Creating a place where we can debate, share different opinions, and express our views is what makes our app and technologies meaningful for people all over the world.
We are proud to work for a place that enables that expression, and we believe it is imperative to evolve as societies change. As Chris Cox said, “We know the effects of social media are not neutral, and its history has not yet been written.”
This is our company.
We’re reaching out to you, the leaders of this company, because we’re worried we’re on track to undo the great strides our product teams have made in integrity over the last two years. We work here because we care, because we know that even our smallest choices impact communities at an astounding scale. We want to raise our concerns before it’s too late.
Free speech and paid speech are not the same thing.
Misinformation affects us all. Our current policies on fact checking people in political office, or those running for office, are a threat to what FB stands for. We strongly object to this policy as it stands. It doesn’t protect voices, but instead allows politicians to weaponize our platform by targeting people who believe that content posted by political figures is trustworthy.
Allowing paid civic misinformation to run on the platform in its current state has the potential to:
— Increase distrust in our platform by allowing similar paid and organic content to sit side-by-side — some with third-party fact-checking and some without. Additionally, it communicates that we are OK profiting from deliberate misinformation campaigns by those in or seeking positions of power.
— Undo integrity product work. Currently, integrity teams are working hard to give users more context on the content they see, demote violating content, and more. For the Election 2020 Lockdown, these teams made hard choices on what to support and what not to support, and this policy will undo much of that work by undermining trust in the platform. And after the 2020 Lockdown, this policy has the potential to continue to cause harm in coming elections around the world.
Proposals for improvement
Our goal is to bring awareness to our leadership that a large part of the employee body does not agree with this policy. We want to work with our leadership to develop better solutions that both protect our business and the people who use our products. We know this work is nuanced, but there are many things we can do short of eliminating political ads altogether.
These suggestions are all focused on ad-related content, not organic.
1. Hold political ads to the same standard as other ads.
a. Misinformation shared by political advertisers has an outsized detrimental impact on our community. We should not accept money for political ads without applying the standards that our other ads have to follow.
2. Stronger visual design treatment for political ads.
a. People have trouble distinguishing political ads from organic posts. We should apply a stronger design treatment to political ads that makes it easier for people to establish context.
3. Restrict targeting for political ads.
a. Currently, politicians and political campaigns can use our advanced targeting tools, such as Custom Audiences. It is common for political advertisers to upload voter rolls (which are publicly available in order to reach voters) and then use behavioral tracking tools (such as the FB pixel) and ad engagement to refine ads further. The risk with allowing this is that it’s hard for people in the electorate to participate in the “public scrutiny” that we’re saying comes along with political speech. These ads are often so micro-targeted that the conversations on our platforms are much more siloed than on other platforms. Currently we restrict targeting for housing and education and credit verticals due to a history of discrimination. We should extend similar restrictions to political advertising.
4. Broader observance of the election silence periods
a. Observe election silence in compliance with local laws and regulations. Explore a self-imposed election silence for all elections around the world to act in good faith and as good citizens.
5. Spend caps for individual politicians, regardless of source
a. FB has stated that one of the benefits of running political ads is to help more voices get heard. However, high-profile politicians can out-spend new voices and drown out the competition. To solve for this, if you have a PAC and a politician both running ads, there would be a limit that would apply to both together, rather than to each advertiser individually.
6. Clearer policies for political ads
a. If FB does not change the policies for political ads, we need to update the way they are displayed. For consumers and advertisers, it’s not immediately clear that political ads are exempt from the fact-checking that other ads go through. It should be easily understood by anyone that our advertising policies about misinformation don’t apply to original political content or ads, especially since political misinformation is more destructive than other types of misinformation.
Therefore, the section of the policies should be moved from “prohibited content” (which is not allowed at all) to “restricted content” (which is allowed with restrictions).
We want to have this conversation in an open dialog because we want to see actual change.
We are proud of the work that the integrity teams have done, and we don’t want to see that undermined by policy. Over the coming months, we’ll continue this conversation, and we look forward to working towards solutions together.
This is still our company.
from Social – TechCrunch https://ift.tt/336qc16
Original Content From: https://techcrunch.com
0 notes
Last Seen Blogs
leboudoirchat
Le Boudoir d'une Chatte
kanamedesu
Just a fangirl from Russia
reichuu
flesh and bones electric fun
enginexa
Enginexa
-continuum
stir the dust into consciousness