#<- they are deliberately attempting to censor the media

[planetkiimchi]

"Last Wednesday, the Israeli Supreme Court held a hearing in response to a petition brought forward by Israeli rights group, HaMoked, to reveal the location of a Palestinian X-Ray technician detained from Nasser Hospital in southern Gaza in February. It was the first court session of its kind since October 7."

if people in israel can speak up against this genocide, as someone who will not be subject the legal repercussions they are likely to face, how can you stay silent?

Concentration camp.

They built a concentration camp.

I don't think words can describe what this other than genocide.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

From the Slang Dictionary

part 2

Algospeak - coded language that people use (“speak”) to avoid being censored or moderated by AI algorithms. It combines algo- from the word "algorithm" with the word speak. The word was used as early as 2016 on social media. Many websites, especially social media sites, use AI algorithms to moderate the large amount of content posted on their platforms. These algorithms often automatically flag or delete content that contains or mentions words or phrases that the algorithm has been programmed to recognize as being unacceptable. However, this often causes algorithms to flag or remove permitted content that discusses sensitive issues or content that uses the “unacceptable” words without breaking any rules. Being aware of this, many communities on social media use coded language, emoji, or euphemisms to avoid having their content removed by algorithms. The term algospeak refers to this language. For example, people used terms like panoramic, panini, and panda express to refer to the COVID-19 pandemic after platforms began removing content that mentioned the pandemic to attempt to halt the spread of misinformation. Some other examples of algospeak include using the word seggs instead of sex, the word accountants to refer to sex workers, the word unalive to refer to death or suicide, the corn emoji to refer to pornography, and the phrase leg booty to refer to the LGBTQ+ community.

Birb - also spelled as berb, is a deliberate misspelling of bird used in internet slang such as DoggoLingo. It’s used as a playful way to refer to cute birds, particularly pet birds.

Bye Felicia - a slang way of dismissing someone. Sometimes formatted as bye, Felicia and based on a movie character whose name is spelled Felisha, it often appears in memes, GIFs, and hashtags online to express disregard or indifference to someone. The term has been popular in Black culture since the 1990s when the film was released, although the original spelling of the name “Felisha” has changed to the more common (and, some would point out, more “white”) spelling, Felicia. Bye Felicia is considered by some to be an example of white culture appropriating Black culture, often with little knowledge of the original source material. The phrase enjoyed renewed popularity around 2009 thanks to its frequent use on the reality TV show RuPaul’s Drag Race. It got another bump in December 2018, when former First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama, used it as a guest on The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon to describe what was going through her head as she and President Obama waved goodbye to the White House at the end of Obama’s presidency in January 2017. Bye Felicia is most often used humorously or as a way to throw shade at someone, suggesting the speaker couldn’t be bothered with another person’s presence or is surprised they haven’t left yet. While humor is almost always part of the intention in using the term, the tone in which it is said has changed somewhat over time. Initially, bye Felicia was said coolly or nonchalantly, as in the movie Friday; now, it’s just as often used in a more aggressive or melodramatic way.

Doggo - this and pupper are affectionate terms for dog and puppy used in the internet slang called DoggoLingo. This emerged in the 2010s and drew on existing online culture, such as lolspeak, the snek meme, and Doge.

Left on read - in internet slang, a person is left on read when a recipient has read, but not responded to, a sender’s message. The expression is often used to express feeling ignored. A read receipt lets the sender know a digital message has been opened or seen (i.e., read) by the recipient. Microsoft Outlook, for instance, allows read receipts for email. Apple has enabled read receipts for text messages since 2011.

Receipts - slang for “proof” or “evidence,” often used to call out someone for lying or to show someone is being genuine. In popular culture, such receipts may come in the form of screenshots, images, or videos. They also often concern things done by famous people. One of the first prominent uses of receipts came in a 2002 interview of singer Whitney Houston by Diane Sawyer for ABC. Sawyer brought up the topic of recent tabloid headlines that accused Houston of buying large amounts of crack cocaine. Houston denied these accusations and demanded proof: “I want to see the receipts.”

Shelfie - a picture of a shelf, especially a bookshelf that shows off someone’s books, movies, art, collectibles, special belongings, etc. It can also be a proper selfie if you are in the picture with the shelves. On social media, the hashtag #shelfie is often posted alongside pictures of various shelves where a person lives or works.

Snacc - internet slang for an extremely attractive or sexy person (i.e., you want to gobble them up like a snack). It’s also internet slang used when cute animals are seeking or enjoying a snack. Snacc, with two Cs, emerges on Black Twitter in 2009, the deliberate misspelling is consistent with other black slang terms, such as phat, thicc, and succ. Early uses of this term refer to actual snacks. Sexual senses of snacc do begin to appear around this time in wordplay, but it doesn’t take off in earnest until around 2017.

Spirit animal - In certain spiritual traditions or cultures, this refers to a spirit which helps guide or protect a person on a journey and whose characteristics that person shares or embodies. It is also metaphor, often humorous, for someone or something a person relates to or admires. The ancient concept of animal guides, particularly prominent in some indigenous, especially Native American, religions and cultures, was adopted in Pagan and Wiccan spirituality in the 1990s. In these contexts, spirit animals are meant literally, referring to spiritual guides or totems that take the form of animals. Earnest quizzes began to emerge in the mid-2000s to help you find your spirit animal. Spirit animal has increasingly been used to indicate, ironically, a strong appreciation or identification for someone or something.

Tea - best served piping hot, tea is slang for “gossip,” a juicy scoop, or other personal information. As far as we can tell, it was steeped in black drag culture. One theory connects tea to the celebrated drag performer The Lady Chablis, who is quoted in the 1994 bestseller Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil: “Yeah, my T. My thing, my business, what’s goin’ on in my life.” T, here, is short for truth.

Source ⚜ More: Word Lists ⚜ Writing Resources PDFs ⚜ Part 1

[mariacallous]

The New Yorker Daily: A Win for Democracy in South Korea

E. Tammy Kim Kim writes about politics, the federal government, and the Koreas.

While working on Deep State Diaries, my weekly dispatch about the Trump Administration’s attacks on the federal workforce, I’ve kept my eye on another democracy in crisis: South Korea.

In December, President Yoon Suk-yeol had attempted to thwart the country’s National Assembly, which was obstructing his agenda, by declaring martial law. He censored the media and banned large gatherings; he ordered troops and police to arrest opposition leaders and a leftist journalist. Shoot, if necessary, he demanded. As I wrote at the time, there could have been a massacre—a return to South Korea’s violent, pre-democratic past. (The country was ruled by military dictators from 1961 to 1987.) But the soldiers disobeyed, legislators pushed past guns to vote down the declaration, and thousands of protesters filled the streets. Within six hours, Yoon was forced to call off his plan.

Mass protests continued throughout the winter, calling for Yoon’s arrest and prosecution. He was eventually impeached and indicted for crimes against the state. It was a meaningful step for a relatively new democracy, I wrote. But impeachment does not automatically lead to removal from office. That would be up to the nation’s Constitutional Court, which deliberated for two and a half months. On Friday morning, the justices ruled unanimously (8–0) in favor of Yoon’s ouster. An election for a new President must now be held within sixty days.

I watched Friday’s proceedings on Korean TV: inside the courtroom, there was a quiet, bloodless recitation of treasonous acts; outside, a rowdy explosion of signs, costumes (a giant bear, a red-hatted Mario), song, and dance. Yoon was holed up in his house, where he has long been keeping out of public view. “You, the Korean people, have been through so much,” the head of the impeachment committee for the National Assembly said. He—all the speakers were men, despite the strong presence of young women in the protest movement—invoked a metaphor of rebirth: a “new, democratic spring” was here.

Shortly after the proceedings, workers took down the Presidential flag from Yoon’s official headquarters. Only the national Taegukgi flag remained. There had been a sense, in the lead-up to the court’s announcement, that removing Yoon from office would be a victory for democracy at large. South Koreans needed the win. The rest of us did, too.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Andrew Doyle

Published: Mar 11, 2025

The legacy of the culture war might be best summed up by the German term “legitimationsprobleme”. Coined as the title of a 1973 book by the philosopher Jürgen Habermas, the phrase is usually translated as “legitimation crisis” and describes a general degradation of trust in figures of authority. While the woke movement has never enjoyed popular support, its stranglehold nonetheless persisted because of journalists, academics and those in positions of political power who continually deceived the public in service of the ideology. As its influence wanes, we are left with the task of repairing this damage.

Anyone who has been paying attention will have noticed that those who complain of “misinformation” (unintentional misrepresentation) and “disinformation” (intentional deception) are typically those who have been most responsible for it. The BBC is currently facing a crisis over its airing of a supposedly impartial documentary about Gaza fronted by the son of a Hamas official. One interviewee was heard praising the deceased terrorist leader Yahya Sinwar for his “jihad against the Jews”, while the BBC’s subtitles mistranslated her phrase as “fighting and resisting Israeli forces”.

Then there is the mainstream media’s continual attempts at historical revisionism. Last month, we heard CBS’s Margaret Brennan claiming that the Holocaust was caused not by rabid and genocidal antisemitism, but by the weaponisation of free speech. Around the same time, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow was trying to eliminate gay men and women from their own history by insisting that the Stonewall uprising in June 1969 was “a riot by trans people”. The Guardian made the similarly fraudulent claim that the riots were “led by trans women of colour” and that a black trans woman called Marsha P. Johnson “threw the first brick”. By his own admission, Johnson was a drag queen who did not identify as female and was not even present when the riots began. This isn’t journalism; it’s propaganda.

This kind of truth-twisting is an inevitable feature of human discourse, which is why a reliable press is an essential feature of a functioning democracy. Yet just a few weeks ago BBC News was observing the “preferred pronouns” of a rapist of children as young as three years old. In September 2023, Joan Smith wrote a piece for UnHerd about how editors at the Financial Times had instructed her to insert a deliberate untruth into a review to promote the tenets of genderism. The reason for this became clear last March, when whistleblowers at the Financial Times exposed the extent to which the publication is ideologically captured, leaking its “Diversity and Inclusion Toolkit” to writer James Esses. There are few mainstream publications operating today that do not prioritise fealty to this dying ideology over accurate reporting.

The problem of academia is even more pronounced. In the most comprehensive recent survey of academics, the University and Colleges Union found that 56% of its members believed that freedom of speech in higher education was in decline and that “self-censorship is very common”, and 19.1% of respondents in European Union countries admitted to censoring themselves at work, as compared to 35.5% of teaching staff in the United Kingdom. The report outlined how “many staff have had their academic freedom abrogated and thereby been subjected to cruel and degrading treatment by their peers, on account of their academic views” and that the practice of self-censorship was the major factor in preventing “the incidence of bullying, psychology pressure and other unconscionable behaviour from being even higher”.

The conclusion was harrowing: “self-censorship at this level appears to make a mockery of any pretence by universities of being paragons of free speech and that of being advocates of unhindered discourse in the pursuit of knowledge and academic freedom.” In his new book Bad Education, Matt Goodwin calls this the “secret code of silence” in academia — which he compares to the Mafia concept of omertá — by which “no matter how glaringly obvious the crisis becomes, no matter how visibly these once great institutions are failing our young people, you just never, ever tell people on the outside”.

The humanities are not immune either. Recently, I had my own brush with the entrenched ideological thinking of art historians. I had written a piece for the Washington Post about Leonardo da Vinci’s lost masterpiece The Battle of Anghiari, a painting which might possibly still exist behind a fresco in Florence’s Palazzo Vecchio. For years, experts have been claiming that Leonardo never painted it in the first place, and yet I was able to quote numerous historical accounts from 16th-century writers who claimed to have seen it. Rather than address the evidence, the experts who responded simply restated their flawed hypothesis, as though asserting something multiple times will magically make it true.

A letter to the Washington Post from Francesca Fiorani, professor of art history at the University of Virginia, exemplifies the problem. She telepathically asserts that my argument is based on “obsession”, as though one article in a two-decade writing career qualifies as monomania. Fiorani either could not, or would not, deign to address any aspects of the evidence I presented. I would have welcomed arguments against the authenticity of these sources, but none were forthcoming. She should have heeded Aldous Huxley’s observation that “facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored”.

While we might assume that academics would be more objective, there are good reasons why the opposite is often the case. Those working in higher education are particularly susceptible to groupthink. Their work is based on the notion of superior knowledge, and so egos are easily bruised when they are proven wrong.

Moreover, the cleverest among us are also those who are able to rationalise and justify the most improbable of theories. Consider the claim by the Scientific American that the “inequity between male and female athletes is a result not of inherent biological differences between the sexes but of biases in how they are treated in sports”. So the reason why men run faster than women has nothing to do with muscle mass, heart size, lung capacity or longer strides, but is attributable to sexist stereotyping. Even a child could explain the flaw in this reasoning.

And while the suggestion that the Covid pandemic was the result of a leak from the Wuhan Institute of Virology is now widely accepted as credible, it was not so long ago that it was dismissed by leading experts as a “racist conspiracy theory”. When molecular biologist Alica Chan and writer Matt Ridley published a defence of this theory in their book Viral: The Search for the Origin of Covid-19, Michael Hiltzik in the Los Angeles Times claimed that the authors were placing “a conspiracy theory between hardcovers to masquerade as sober scientific inquiry”. Hiltzik’s certainty was premature. In December 2024, the United States government’s Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic released its final report confirming that the lab-leak theory was most likely true.

According to many members of the political class, the solution to the problem of a public that will not accept these fabricated narratives is censorship. Last May, the unelected president of the European Commission – Ursula von der Leyen – announced her intention to create a “European Democracy Shield” to protect EU citizens from online “disinformation”. Speaking at the Copenhagen Democracy Summit, she compared free speech to a virus: “As technology evolves we need to build up societal immunity around information manipulation. Because research has shown that pre-bunking is much more successful than debunking. Pre-bunking is basically the opposite of debunking.” She then added: “In short, prevention is preferable to cure. Perhaps if you think of information manipulation as a virus. Instead of treating an infection, once it has taken hold, that is debunking. It is much better to vaccinate so that the body is inoculated. Pre-bunking is the same approach.”

As a new synonym for “censorship”, “pre-bunking” is up there with “pre-crime”, “thoughtcrime” and “public safety” in the dystopian lexicon. It is precisely this paternalistic attitude among European leaders that vice president J. D. Vance condemned at his speech last month at the Munich Security Conference. The unanswerable retort to state censorship was written by the Roman poet Juvenal almost 2000 ago: quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (“who watches the watchmen?”). The authority of the censor presupposes a kind of omniscience. As John Milton put it in his Areopagitica: “How shall the licencers themselves be confided in, unless we can confer upon them, or they assume to themselves above all others in the land, the grace of infallibility and uncorruptedness?”

Most of us have grown weary of those who seem to believe that the “argument from authority” fallacy is a persuasive way to settle a debate. I for one do not trust von der Leyen or any of her ilk to arbitrate on the difference between reality and fiction. I no longer trust academics, the mainstream media or politicians to prioritise facts over convenient falsehoods. As we move into the post-woke era, we are going to have to find a way to rebuild the reputations of our captured institutions. I do not claim to know how this legitimation crisis can be rectified, but it will only be possible once those in authority overcome their contempt for the public and rekindle their respect for the primacy of truth.

==

"Pre-bunking" is a synonym of "religious indoctrination."

[cipheramnesia]

Today I am asking myself why do I like Terrifier and Terrifier 2. There doesn't have to be a reason for it, and I struggle to find any merit to them other than the dubious quality, inventiveness, and excess of the gore and violence. Maybe that's it, and probably that is literally all there is to the movies - fans all say as much. And if your only thoughts on Terrifier are "I hate that shitty movie," honestly that's fair, more than reasonable, but this post isn't for you so kindly skip along by.

But also the movies don't hit for me in the same way as a bloody rollercoaster ride movie does. For some reason I am unable to comprehend, my mind is insisting the movies are good on an artistic level - my brain insists there is artistic merit, although it steadfastly refuses to disclose what that might be. This isn't an endorsement, by the by, the Terrifier movies are extreme in a way apart from even the French Extremity movement or the whole torture trap Saw era from the USA.

Although in some ways that may be a part of what makes the movies something more than graphic violence alone. They are unpleasant in a way that is malicious - a naked cruelty which in a perverse way is a form of open honesty speaking to truth. There is no detachment from the violence, no easy way to disconnect from it as some sort of mechanical function or take it in as a part of a story. Art the Clown embodies such a totality of unrelenting and unchecked cruelty that it comes around as confusingly refreshing, because it is so rare for any media to be so graphically violent without attempting some framing of the harm - even if only as a plot point. It's masochistic to watch but in a more literal kink way. The Terrifier movies are a safe space to engage with senseless violence and cruelty, to experience the emotional impact of the idea of an uncaring world design only to cause pain, and then to be able to safely leave this mental space physically intact, better equipped for the real world which by nature is not nearly so malicious as Terrifier. Cathartic in the same way as it can be to get whipped or beaten, followed by care and caressing. Maybe.

All that under consideration, a throwaway line from a review has raised a second consideration for me: Are these movies camp? They are wildly exaggerated performances which incorporate large amounts of generally discarded pop culture on purpose. They deliberately incorporate the cheap aesthetics of low budget video nasties, grindhouse movies, and direct to video 80s horror. Everything about Art the Clown and his violent acts is severely over the top from his facial features to his makeup to his mannerisms which are those of a mime rather than a clown. I think it's arguable that the Terrifier movies go beyond simply utilizing a retro aesthetic into performing a kind of horror drag - dressing up in the clothes of the 70s-80s but elevating the content into a hyper-grotesque persona that's almost like everything the film censors and critics from that era thought such movies actually were. It's a movie that purposefully becomes the kind of monster conservatives always imagine about horror, just to throw that right in their face. It is, I think, very arguably camp in how much it is purposefully over the top and self-indulgent about what the vast majority of people would (often rightly) dismiss as artless trash.

Which leads me back around to asking myself if I truly believe what I've written, or if I'm merely trying to find an internal and artistic justification for liking violent and misogynistic horror flicks with nothing of else of substance.

[xxxjarchiexxx]

https://mondoweiss.net/2023/12/operation-al-aqsa-flood-day-76-extrajudicial-killings-of-men-in-front-of-their-families-in-gaza/

Casualties 

19,650+ killed* and at least 53,000 wounded in the Gaza Strip.

303 Palestinians killed in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem

Israel revises its estimated October 7 death toll down from 1,400 to 1,147.

469 Israeli soldiers killed since October 7, and at least 1,831 injured.

*This figure was confirmed by Gaza’s Ministry of Health. Due to breakdowns in communication networks within the Gaza Strip, the Ministry of Health in Gaza has not been able to regularly and accurately update its tolls since mid-November. Some rights groups put the death toll number closer to 26,000.

Key Developments 

UNOCHA: Israeli forces allegedly executed at least 11 unarmed Palestinian men in front of family members in Gaza’s Remal neighborhood

Palestinian Ministry of Health: Hundreds of wounded die as a result of the lack of health services in Al-Shifa Hospital.

Israeli forces kill 16-year-old boy near Bethlehem in occupied West Bank. 

OCHA: Over 360,000 cases of infectious diseases recorded in UNRWA shelters

WHO: About 14 healthcare workers of al-Ahli Arab Hospital arrested by Israeli forces and held in unknown locations.

Al-Haq: Israeli forces deliberately destroyed access to health services in Gaza since October 7 through patterns of intimidation, direct targeting, siege, and occupation, “resulting in a humanitarian disaster.”

WFP: first aid convoy from Jordan, including 46 trucks, reaches Gaza on Wednesday. 

Human Rights Watch: Meta systematically censoring content about Palestine on Instagram and Facebook.

Israeli media: Muhammad Deif, leader of Hamas’s Qassam Brigades who survived seven assassination attempts by Israel, alive and in better condition than previously believed.

Australian Defence Minister: Australia to send “up to six additional” troops, but no warships, to support U.S.-led Red Sea operation.

Lebanese Civil Defense: civilian woman killed by Israeli shelling in Lebanese border village of Maroun al-Ras.

[gracesung716]

Week 4 - SDL

This campaign started in February 2021 as a response to the protests in Belarus in late 2020 when COVID-19 was at its peak. It used storytelling and photography to oppose the regime of dictator Alexander Lukashenko. To provide some context, during the massive rallies against the rigged presidential elections, one of the symbols used was a flag representing the period of an independent Belarus dating back to 1918. The flag was a white-red-white flag; the regime deemed this colour combination to be banned. It was to the point if people were to wear clothes or accessories in those colour combinations, they would have been detained, fined or sentenced to prison. 

It was to the point that Belarussians on social media would say they would often carry emergency toiletry products just in case they were detained because there were claims that the jail conditions were inhumane and unsanitary. There were also claims that people who tested COVID-19 positive were put in to infect them deliberately. By the time it got to winter 2021, the situation had got worse due to the number of people who were sentenced to ridiculous verdicts, such as “picking vegetation from flower beds and throwing it at police officers”—deeming yellow and blue as unwelcome in the city streets as a result of hundreds arrested for showing solidarity with Ukraine.

These acts by the government were censorships placed on the country to silence the voices of the public and gradually erase the lived history of the public to ensure fear. Throughout history, there have been many instances where extreme censorships were placed, such as the book burning during Nazi Germany to censor cultures, religions and political beliefs that were against the Nazi regime. If this is carried on long enough, society will eventually forget the history and the ability to speak out.

The project started as a desperate attempt to preserve the memories of what happened to the citizens of Belarus during this time. It involved screenshots of 30 participants' conversations held on Zoom and Skype paired with their stories. Through this project, subjects of memory, the process of forgetting, and remembering were addressed so that people could connect so that such current events were not forgotten.

I initially thought, “What could a simple screenshot possibly do?” But the more I thought about this project’s purpose, the more I realised that even though this was a relatively simple act, it was one of the only things they could do at that point, given the circumstances. They could not go outside and do it as it would have been irresponsible because it was peak COVID times, and there was also a fear factor of being detained and/or arrested. Making this one of the safest ways to preserve memories beyond the human brain's ability to store memories. Taking a screenshot is simple, but preserving memories does not necessarily have to involve anything complicated because a simple image holds history that can be told to connect with people.

[footfungus96-blog]

Mastering social media or being mastered by it?

Week 10: Digital Citizenship and Conflict: Social Media Governance

In today’s digital age, this haunting analogy isn’t as far removed from reality as it might seem. Our online lives are governed not only by complex algorithms but also by the deliberate actions of powerful authorities. As digital citizens, we are navigating a landscape where what we see, read, and engage with is often meticulously curated - and sometimes censored - to align with political and economic interests.

The New Gatekeepers of Information

Social media platforms have become the modern pulpits of information. While algorithms tailor our feeds based on our interactions, a subtler force often guides these digital narratives: the strategic interventions of governments and regulatory bodies. For example, recent reports have highlighted instances where U.S.-based TikTok VPNs have censored searches and hashtags related to government criticism and controversial issues such as #fucktrump. This is not merely an algorithmic quirk; it’s a deliberate move to control the narrative, reminiscent of historical attempts to manipulate public perception.

Historical Parallels and Modern Realities

Drawing parallels between the past and the present is not just an exercise in historical curiosity - it reveals how power dynamics remain constant, even as their tools evolve. Just as a medieval priest could wield spiritual authority to manipulate beliefs during witch hunts, modern institutions employ digital governance techniques to shape our online experiences. This blend of algorithmic guidance and overt censorship raises a fundamental question: Are we the masters of our social media realms, or are we being masterfully controlled?

Recent scholarly work has shed light on the subtle art of digital manipulation. Analyses of online communities, such as those discussed in articles like The draw of the manosphere: Understanding Andrew Tate's appeal to lost men , reveal that narratives are often constructed to give the illusion of choice, while in reality, they steer public opinion towards specific outcomes. Similarly, the concept of gaslighting - a term that has transcended its psychological origins to describe broader societal manipulations - explains how our perceptions can be systematically undermined. An in-depth explainer on gaslighting outlines how such techniques can erode individual trust in their own judgments, leaving us more vulnerable to external influences.

The Politics of Visibility

The control of digital content isn’t confined to algorithmic black boxes; it’s actively enforced. Authorities across the globe have shown varying degrees of intervention. In some cases, censorship is aimed at quelling dissent or shaping political discourse, while in others, it seeks to preserve a specific narrative that aligns with governmental or corporate interests. When our search results or hashtags are manipulated - whether by state action or platform policies - the very notion of an open digital commons is called into question.

This isn’t to say that all forms of governance in digital spaces are inherently nefarious. Regulation can protect users from harmful content and misinformation. However, the balance is delicate. When regulation tips into overt censorship, it risks becoming a tool of suppression rather than empowerment.

Reflecting on Digital Citizenship

Digital citizenship means more than just participating in online communities; it’s about being aware of the forces that shape our digital interactions. It calls for a critical examination of the sources and structures that influence what we see. Are we critically engaging with the content presented to us, or are we simply accepting a pre-filtered reality? In asking “Mastering social media or being mastered by it?”, we must consider the implications of surrendering our digital autonomy to unseen gatekeepers.

Concluding Thoughts

As we continue to inhabit this ever-evolving digital landscape, the challenge lies in reclaiming our role as active participants rather than passive recipients. By questioning the narratives imposed on us and demanding transparency from both algorithms and authorities, we can begin to forge a path toward a more open and equitable digital future.

References

Rich, B & Bujalka, E 2023, ‘The draw of the “manosphere”: understanding Andrew Tate’s appeal to lost men’, The Conversation, viewed <https://theconversation.com/the-draw-of-the-manosphere-understanding-andrew-tates-appeal-to-lost-men-199179>.

[moodymeangirl]

mmg daily lisdex essay: porn isn't evil but Pornhub is bad (like how Meta is, ie capitalism overall especially unregulated)

seeing a lot of debate abt whether porn is good or bad within my communities lately and just wanna add my nuanced 2 cents which is:

not inherently, inherently it's neutral.

but like anything under capitalism (esp which employs a majority of either women or queer men ie people within demographics marginalised by white supremacist patriarchy) the most mainstream access points are billion dollar businesses which significantly harm human society, both thru unethical business practices and thru their neglect of the cultural health of the people who are their customers and users.

like Meta, Twitter, and Tiktok all do. not necessarily moreso than the social media giants either. id say less so. but in the same ways, largely: ethical neglect, lack of moderation, choosing to make money from societal marginalisation, never making an effort to combat it, and cruxially fighting hard to ensure children can access their sites - bc as that shitcunt Mr Beast showed us so clearly, predatory marketing towards children is how the social and content media industry primarily survives. internat business 101 is selling to kids first, then keep the lifetime customer, while youth communities themselves keep ur cultural relevance alive. then repeat to infinity.

my opinion is basically, no porn isn't bad but the tube site business model representing a majority of the market share Is.

frequently at this point the debate turns into censorship and its like yes obviously governmental moves towards censorship of free expression, especially surrounding highly shamed yet fundamentally human and important topics such as adult sexual pleasure is awful and should be protested vehemently. there should not be porn bans. yes sexual media banning does lead to facism.

but capitalism should be dismantled and in the meantime there should be ethics regulations imposed upon porn sharing websites.

just like there should be ethics regulations imposed on social media websites. just like there should be ethics regulations imposed on all large companies. not even different, porn specfic ones either. literally just regulate the fuckers please

atm people r blaming sex positivity for untapped capitalism (which does this with everything not just fuck videos) or they're viewing attempts at regulation as inherently facist/censoring. and it's like yes sometimes sex positivity causes some forms of toxicity to thrive in community. (especially because as capitalism advances toward facism our communities are being deliberately weakened and so cultural changes we could otherwise work thru r much bigger obstacles)

and yes frequently political leaders disguise facism as regulation. (esp bc having made our communities weaker the right is now taking advantage of our fears of vulnerability to recruit and to advance facist ideology under the guise of protection). even if u personally hate porn as content, and are disgusted by kinky sex u should be loudly and proudly organising against this type of facism.

but neither of those truths, changes the fact pornography is a moral neutral.

nor that that the solution to ethics problems within the pornography industry is short term regulation, long term dismantling of capitalism.

so fight the censors. fight the capitalists. fight the facists. (theyre the same people). and jerk off accordingly (read: however u personally like to)

[fact-nova]

The Controversy Surrounding Ram Gopal Varma: An Analysis of His Legal Challenges

Ram Gopal Varma, a name synonymous with controversial filmmaking and outspoken opinions, has once again found himself at the center of a heated legal and political debate. Known for his audacious tweets and unconventional approach to controversies, Varma has often dismissed legal notices and arrest warrants with an almost cavalier attitude. However, recent developments suggest that the situation this time is significantly more serious. As of November 25th, Varma appears to be avoiding direct confrontation with the authorities. The police from Prakasam district, Andhra Pradesh, have made attempts to reach him at his residence, only to find him absent. Teams have been dispatched to Mumbai and Coimbatore to locate him. This escalation raises questions about the gravity of the charges against him and his response to them. The Origin of the Legal Battle The issue stems from a social media post by Varma that promoted his pre-election film Vyuham. In this post, Varma used morphed images of prominent leaders like Nara Chandrababu Naidu, Pawan Kalyan, and Nara Lokesh, placing their faces onto female characters. The post sparked outrage and led to a complaint by Ramalingam, a TDP Mandal Secretary from Maddipadu village in Prakasam district. An FIR was registered on November 12th, and the police subsequently summoned Varma for questioning on November 19th. Varma, citing prior commitments and a packed schedule, failed to appear, requesting an extension to November 24th. As the situation escalated, Varma and his legal team filed a quash petition and an anticipatory bail plea in the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Legal Proceedings and Responses Varma’s advocate, Balayya, has made the following arguments in his client’s defense: - Cooperation with Authorities: Varma has responded to the police notices and expressed willingness to cooperate. His absence, they argue, is due to genuine professional commitments. - Virtual Meetings as a Solution: Given concerns about potential arrest during in-person questioning, Varma’s team proposed a virtual meeting. - Media Speculations: Balayya emphasized that rumors of third-degree treatment against Varma are baseless and only serve to sensationalize the issue. Despite these assurances, the police remain firm. Prakasam SP A.R. Damodhar has made it clear that the choice between virtual and in-person questioning lies with the authorities, not Varma. He criticized Varma’s perceived lack of respect for the process, stating that such requests should have been made earlier. The Political Angle The controversy has also drawn comments from political figures. Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy recently condemned what he called “revenge politics.” He questioned the legitimacy of targeting Varma when his films, including Vyuham, have passed the scrutiny of the censor board. Reddy highlighted the importance of free speech and the risks of stifling dissent through legal intimidation. Analyzing the Larger Picture The situation presents a complex interplay of legal, political, and social factors. On one hand, the police are acting on a complaint that falls under the purview of defamation and potential misuse of social media platforms. On the other, Varma’s supporters argue that his actions fall under creative freedom and political satire. This case also raises broader questions about the fine line between free speech and defamation. Should filmmakers and public figures be held to stricter standards when commenting on sensitive political issues? Or does this signify an attempt to curtail dissenting voices under the guise of legal enforcement? Conclusion The saga surrounding Ram Gopal Varma’s legal challenges is far from over. As the courts deliberate on his petitions and the police intensify their efforts, the outcome will likely have implications beyond this individual case. It will touch on issues of creative expression, political satire, and the boundaries of law enforcement in a democratic society. Whether Varma’s actions are seen as provocative but harmless satire or as a calculated attempt to defame political figures, one thing is clear: this controversy will continue to spark debates in the public sphere. Only time will reveal which side of the story resonates more strongly with the public and the judiciary. What are your thoughts on this issue? Is this a necessary correction to unchecked behavior, or does it pose a threat to free speech? Let’s discuss in the comments below! Read the full article

[xtruss]

Digital Warfare: US 🇺🇸 And China 🇨🇳 Go Head To Head In Cyberspace

— Mariam Amini

As the start of the new year sees Israel’s war on Gaza rage on, the US faces an ongoing battle in the cyber realm back home.

According to one survey by Gallup and Knight Foundation, trust in US media is so low that half of Americans believe national news outlets deliberately mislead them.

This rise in distrust is a common global pattern, with the UK having the second lowest levels of media trust according to a study of 24 countries by King’s College London. Held as part of the World Values Survey, just 13% of British respondents expressed confidence in the press.

Meanwhile, news consumption on social media is only growing, with data showing a third of Americans under the age of 30 now get their news on TikTok.

2023 saw the White House ramp up its efforts to manage the Chinese-owned tech giant, which has over 150 million users in the States, the highest of any country globally.

In March, platform CEO Shou Zi Chew even appeared before Congress, in an attempt to dispel allegations over the app’s collection of sensitive user data, as well as censorship of any content that goes against China’s Communist Party.

It’s all slightly ironic, considering the intense regulatory crackdown on domestic tech companies by Chinese authorities in 2020, which even saw e-commerce site Alibaba fined $2.8 billion in a landmark antitrust case in 2021.

US government and European Union's parliament ban TikTok From staff mobile devices

The Asian nation’s technology sector has since conformed to new regulations, much like the control US officials perhaps wish to instill over TikTok.

In December, US presidential primary Nikki Haley publicly condemned the platform. She says: “We really do need to ban TikTok once and for all. For every 30 minutes that someone watches TikTok every day, they become 17% more antisemitic, more pro-Hamas.”

Her statements have since been debunked by Generation Lab, the data company behind the survey she references. However, it does beg the question of why TikTok faces greater reprimand when, for instance, Silicon Valley-owned Meta has already been proven to systematically censor Palestinian content in a review by Human Rights Watch.

So then, one must ask, is the real concern about data protection or threats to Silicon Valley business interests, or maybe even anti-Israeli sentiment in general?

While Instagram saw a decent growth of 47.8% between 2020 to 2022, TikTok doubled its user base. According to polling data shared by Axios, the majority of these users express pro-Palestinian sentiment. This is especially frequent among young people on the platform.

The tech giant has confirmed this natural trend, emphasising a need to listen to users: “This is a really difficult time for millions of people around the world and in our TikTok community.”

“We feel it’s important to meet with and listen to creators, human rights experts, civil society and other stakeholders to help guide our ongoing work to keep our global community safe.”

U.S. President Joe Biden participates in a virtual meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping

So, would the North American giant really ban TikTok? And if they did, would more countries follow suit? TikTok was banned in India in 2020 over claims of illegal data collection. This occurred shortly after geopolitical tensions at the border between India and China.

The video-sharing app was also slapped with a $368 million fine by the European Union for data beaches in the same year.

However, the company has since taken steps on advancing data security in partnership with Oracle Cloud Infrastructure. According to TikTok U.S. Data Security, as of June 2022, 100% of US user traffic is now routed to the US-based computer software company.

As for the question of censorship, visiting fellow Michael Kwet at Yale Law School’s Information Society Project believes: “There’s no reason to believe TikTok will offer substantially more diverse views across the global media landscape”.

In an interview with Al Jazeera, he says: “When confronted with content moderation decisions, TikTok will do what all big social media companies do: remove content at the request of entities with power, so long as it becomes too costly to disobey.”

In the midst of Israel's ongoing aggression in the besieged Gaza Strip, alongside rampant misinformation and media bias - one thing is clear: access to honest, independent journalism centred on human values, not corporate, is needed like never before.

[rogha]

‘there are terrible things happening in the world and the media is not covering them if you even give a shit’ is actually a bad way to deliver news. i am not a bad person for falling for deliberate attempts by governments to both ignore and censor civil unrest in their countries. I am busy trying not to fall for deliberate attempts by my government to both ignore and censor civil unrest in my country. like there is a lot going on everywhere all the time.

[aenor-llelo]

Okay my Discord server asked me to make a post about orp!wilbur’s extensive crime list and how/why some of them are crimes in the first place, because most/all of them are actual offenses irl Somewhere, or at least were at some point.

-Disrespectful behavior towards the Noble Houses and agents of the Crown. (Multiple counts) -Attempts to incite political criticism, dissent, and debate towards the Noble Houses and agents of the Crown. (Multiple counts)

This is kind of a given, but just for the record, there are countries that have censorship laws about the government, and attempting to open critical discussion of politics can fall under that kind of criminalization. 

It may or may not also be a joke about the trial of Socrates.

-Causing distress of uncertain origin to animals belonging to the Crown.

This mostly falls under tampering with royal/government property.

-The promotion and reproduction of banned media.

This right here is related to censorship laws again. Specific books and music can and have been banned from distribution and production for discussing taboo or censored topics.

-Arson. (directed towards own property)

This is specifically illegal in urban and city areas. Burning trash is a pretty common thing in rural areas but very illegal in building dense places due to risk of fire spread.

-Inciting physical altercations. (Multiple counts)

That’s just a pretty ubiquitous law, don’t start fights with people in public.

-One instance of attempting to fight a nautilus in the Community House public aquarium.

Same reason as the royal animals offense, but also falls under public disruption and disorderly conduct.

-Street vending in unpermitted areas.

Street vending tends to actually have a lot of laws attached to it in terms of what/how/where you can sell.

-Using a shotgun in a residential area.

Like arson on private property, this is another urban v rural legal distinction. In many countries, gun usage and possession, especially outside the Americas, is heavily regulated (I understand the US is different but The World Is Not America).

-Handling fish in a suspicious manner.

This is a very poorly worded IRL law about handling illegally obtained fish.

-Busking.

If I recall correctly, this is one of those regional laws that are deliberately hostile to homeless people, because busking is often associated with street begging.

-Parkour.

Yep! Parkour is very illegal on anywhere considered private property in many places, because the owners of private property don’t want to be liable for parkour injuries.

-One count of public indecency. -Vandalizing public spaces by placing unpermitted photography.

Another “generally illegal everywhere” law, though what counts as public indecency or vandalism will vary by region.

-Causing distress by consuming inedible/hazardous materials in public view. (Multiple counts) -Threatening (though not provably committing) bestiality as a form of verbal harassment.

Causing distress can file under harassment/disorderly conduct, and in some places actions that could be taken as self harming/suicidal behavior are criminalized.

orp!wilbur has committed so many crimes over fundy’s lifetime.

[ultramaga]

You expect the mainstream media to report that Hamas and Leftists are in an alliance?

We saw what happened under BLM.

The media played defence for them. If you want evidence Leftists promote antisemitism, up to violence, just look around on Tumblr. They are not hiding it. Heck, unless tumblr finally cracked down, and I just checked, they didn't, the old slogan calling for genocide was mostly populated by Leftists.

It was found by the scammers and they parasitised it thoroughly, which is delicious irony. But if you peel it back, you get the whole "I love communism and I am queer and hate Israel and think Hamas is really hot!1!111" Youtube suppresses it too. Search on left wing antisemitism, without logging in. The algorithm points you to white supremacists. Which is the only group the media reports on. Hell, Hamas supporters openly attack jews, and it is still blamed on de narzeees.

Only if you are lucky enough to have bookmarked left wing antisemitism discussions will you find them. Youtube hasn't outright censored them, but it doesn't want them to be known, and for most people, they won't be. Most people trust the media and search engines. They have no idea how deeply they are manipulated.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/12/09/anti-semitism-is-being-normalised-in-british-life/

Yes, there are still dissenting voices, but they are deliberately buried. I'm taking one example. One country in particular. I know Britain pretty well, and I watched it fall with the ascendancy of Leftism. Antisemitism used to be regarded as one of the reasons fascism was reviled, and by the seventies, it was past history in Britain, a spent force.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/11/09/antisemitism-israel-palestine-hamas-keir-starmer/

The media explained the Leftists actions as those of white supremacists.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/05/06/second-green-councillor-criticised-after-denouncing-israel/

Because the Leftists allied with those who allied with Hitler.

(Not that I expect that alliance to end any better than last time)

Antisemitism from Leftists is normal. It is present at the top.

The obvious connection is always submerged. These are, according to media reports, white men, they play computer games, they have no sex and hate women, yadda yadda yadda. Media and State have merged into one, and the narrative is "blame the narzees", and who are the natzeeesss? The opponents of Leftism. Everyone who stands for Western Values. Hell, even saying that it is ok to be white can get you arrested in countries like the UK and Australia. How much longer do you think it will be until the same applies to jews?

"Despite the FBI’s attempt to downplay Akram’s anti-Semitism, he was clearly motivated by anti-Jewish sentiment. He targeted a synagogue. He used anti-Semitic language. And he was reported to the UK police a year ago for threatening to bomb and kill Jews. How did we get here? How has it come to pass that a British Islamist anti-Semite has carried out an act of terror at an American synagogue? And how should we respond to it?"

If you so much as report that attacks are being done by Muslims, you can be arrested here for Islamophobia, and so in compliance with the law, I'd like to say they are definitely not Islamic, they are good boys who didnadoo nuffin.

Have a look at Amnesty International - how does it react to the attacks on Jews?

"Acts of Islamophobia, antisemitism and anti-Palestinian and anti-Arab racism prevent Muslim, Jewish, Arab and Palestinian people from being able to freely practice their religion and culture"

It says you are not allowed to oppose Islam, that's Islamophobia, that if you say this religion is bad, that is a crime, you must praise it because Islam is a race. It also weirdly distinguishes between Arabs and Palestinians. Because the Leftist rewriting of history holds that the two groups have no connection and the Palestinians sprung into existence at that location at the dawn of history and only a Narzee would question it.

The government of Britain ignored Muslim men armed with machetes, despite British law outlawing everything sharper than a rubber ball. It arrested anyone who criticised them instead.

I noticed most videos critical of Ricky Jones were yanked. He called for the death of jews, and was applauded by the representative of Amnesty International. (around 40s)

When I reported on Quora that a member of the British government did such things, it was denied overwhelmingly by Leftists, who claimed that he was not a member of the government. I pointed to the government website which said that he was. They ignored that and launched a massive attack on my person and all other posts I had made. They didn't want it to be recognised that Leftism and antisemitism couldn't be separated. Or that it wasn't the Narzees doing the damage. "Ricky Jones, 57, was filmed telling a crowd on August 7: “They are disgusting fascists and we need to cut all their throats and get rid of them all.""

If he is ever to stand trial, it will be with a jury that has been indoctrinated by the media to think he is a good boy who didnadoo nuffin, and I am required by law to agree.

So how do the British Muslims react to the demands for genocide by their members?

They blame trump, they blame musk, they blame climate change and computer gamers, they blame everything and everyone but themselves for their actions. And by laws I must agree. I do not want to be arrested for Islamophobia. All hail Leftism, which lets us be so free to say anything ... that the government wants us to say.

Leftists burn synagogues as they march in blackshirts, screaming for the annihilation of all outside their movement.

Then when we object, they call us "fascist".