#social media complaints policy

[thebreakfastgenie]

I've never been one to complain about rainbow capitalism anyway and in 2025 I am firmly "I will take whatever I can get" but I wish that conversation ever focused on whether companies putting pride themed logos on their social media accounts have homophobic or transphobic policies behind the scenes. Subaru was notable in the 90s because when their market research showed their cars were popular with lesbians and they decided to start actively advertising to them, they backed that up with policies for their LGBTQ employees, notably extending benefits to same-sex partners when gay couples couldn't legally get married, which was a big deal at the time. If a company is doing rainbow capitalism in public but have a history of employees complaining about discrimination we should talk about that but that's never what the generic complaints about rainbow capitalism are.

[germiyahu]

I also don't like the assertion that Jews are trying to conflate "criticism of Israel with antisemitism/the Israeli state with Jewishness as a whole" because you... YOU... did that first and you do it more easily than you breathe.

You interrogate every complaint of antisemitism, just to make sure it's not actually whining about someone being mean to Israel. You investigate the person's social media history to make sure they're not a Zionist. You turn around and act so enlightened and wise when you say "Right because Netanyahu wants Jewish people to think criticism of Israel is antisemitic, and he wants Jewish people to think that they have to have ties to Israel and that Israel is the only place they'll feel safe, that plays right into his hands," like you're doing this for Jewish people's benefit. Like you're not one of the people making Jews feel unsafe.

The fact of the matter is that Israel is intrinsically Jewish. By design yes. But also for the fact that it's just logically true? Most Israelis are Jewish. Most Diaspora Jews have friends and family in Israel. It's not a function of flags or national anthems. It's a function of people. Saying "Well conflating Israel with the idea of Jewishness is antisemitic," changes nothing about that. It's words with no value. It's empty air. Because what have you done to advocate for Diaspora Jewry and make them feel like they're not subordinate to Israel? What have you done to assure them that your disdain for a country that most of them have personal familial and cultural ties to is not motivated by bigotry? What have you done to include them and center their safety when advocating against Israel's policies?

Yes, the more people are antisemitic and weird about Israel to Diaspora Jews' faces, the more of them will gravitate closer to Israel. But that's not the point. The point is that if your criticisms of Israel were normal, we wouldn't have a problem. 99% of Diaspora Jews would join you. But you tell them they're not allowed to defend Israel in any context and they're not allowed to defend themselves when your "criticism" of Israel harms them. You don't want to admit that these can overlap. You just want them to silently add a rubber stamp of approval of whatever you say or they can leave.

It's clear you don't see Jews as a marginalized group. This is not how Leftists treat marginalized groups. This is how they treat the oppressor group, the dominant group. Diaspora Jews are at best an ally to Palestinian liberation. Because you don't see them as different from Israelis, you see them as the group that benefits from the oppression of Palestinians, not as a group that has nothing to do with Palestine and is historically and contemporarily marginalized by Western society, the society you live in.

And yet for all you conflate Diaspora and Israeli Jews you clearly want to keep Israel and the Diaspora divided, isolated from each other. They can't show solidarity with one another because that's (((ZIONIST COLLUSION))) and confirmation of a media controlled conspiracy or something. You want Diaspora Jews under your thumb and you want Israeli Jews dead. You're not as subtle as you think you are.

[argumate]

there are a few reasons for why someone might wish to reduce the level of immigration rather than increase it:

it's illegal to build housing, so there will be nowhere for them to live -- this is a valid concern! a society where it is illegal or very costly to build housing will have difficulties with immigration, and population growth in general, new family formation, seniors downsizing, people living closer to their jobs, in fact there will be many problems; please consider legalising the construction of housing immediately, it makes everything so much easier.

we don't have enough schools/hospitals/trains for more people -- similar to a housing shortage this is a valid concern and has a similar solution: build more infrastructure! if you have a shortage of vital infrastructure and an inability to construct more then that will be a constant drag on growth regardless of immigration.

immigrants reduce wages -- this is a complicated one as it gets tangled up in so many different hypotheses:

immigrants that are not allowed to work may work illegally and accept low wages without complaint as they fear deportation, while immigrants that have rights may demand higher wages.

population increase does not automatically lower wages as people consume as well as work (wages rose faster in the 1960s despite population growth being high).

if immigrants reduce wages, why doesn't that lower prices? if lower wages flow through to higher corporate profits then that suggests issues with market concentration and lack of competition that are independent of immigration.

many industries have gatekeeping bottlenecks that prevent new workers from joining in order to keep wages high, like healthcare (which often leads to a two tier system where e.g. nurses might be paid less than doctors if they aren't protected by the same guild).

immigrants require too much public support -- another complicated one if you believe that immigrants work too much for too little, since this idea suggests that immigrants import excess consumption instead of excess production; of course it's possible that young immigrants work hard and don't consume much in the way of healthcare while older immigrants work less and consume more healthcare, so both assertions could be true simultaneously depending on which immigrants you are talking about (in practice I don't think it's the case that immigrants or their descendants consume noticeably more public support than non-immigrants).

immigrants might be axe murderers -- unclear whether this belief relies on immigrants having committed axe murders in the past or planning to commit them in the future, but with crime rates at historic lows it seems that axe murders fluctuate due to reasons that are not tied to immigration levels (and there are so many candidates to choose from: social policy, incarceration rates, abortion access, lead in the petrol, war and mass mobilisation, availability of mobile phones and the internet, dozens more hypotheses).

immigrants might make people racist -- this sounds funny but it's true that due to the way people get tribal (and unfortunate media incentives) if any immigrant does turn out to be an axe murderer then it will potentially prejudice popular opinion against all immigrants, much like the way if a serial killer turns out to be a middle aged man it justifies treating all middle aged men as serial killers, etc.

I'm ignoring the overtly racist reasons why someone might want to constrain immigration as those are unpleasant; there are obviously a lot of covertly or implicitly racist reasons but I think it's better to take them at face value first.

I believe there are strong moral and economic arguments in favour of what you might call a "let people do what the fuck they want" policy towards immigration, and that most of the challenges to adopting this relate to self-inflicted own goals where a society shoots itself in the dick by making it impossible to build housing where people want to live, or impossible to build power stations, or impossible to build train lines, and then laments the lack of the infrastructure necessary for life; we don't have to do this, and we could all be a lot richer if we just stopped choosing not to be.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Elsie Carson-Holt at LGBTQ:

Jack Daniel’s has joined a growing number of brands that have cut their commitments to diversity, after conservative influencer Robby Starbuck threatened to make the company his next target. Last week, it was Harley Davidson, and before them it was Tractor Supply Co. and John Deere. Starbuck’s method of rallying his online followers to deluge companies social media with complaints about their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and donations to social justice organizations has proven effective.

Jack Daniel’s, the whiskey company, is the latest. On August 21, Starbuck posted on X (formerly known as Twitter) “Big news: The next company we were set to expose was Jack Daniels,” but that the company had ended several initiatives and partnerships.

Starbuck said, “They must have been tipped off by us going through employee LinkedIn pages” and that the company had “just preemptively announced” changes to DEI programs. Starbuck had obtained an email from Brown Forman (Jack Daniel’s parent company) saying that “the world has evolved” since launching a DEI campaign in 2019. The company said that since January, it had been evolving the current program to a “strategic framework,” which includes ending its partnership with the Human Rights Campaign and its Corporate Equality Index (CEI), which tracks how large employers treat their LGBTQ+ employees through various policies.

Jack Daniel’s is the latest company to shamefully cave into right-wing faux outrage artist Robby Starbuck’s bad-faith campaign against DEI and LGBTQ+ initiatives in workplaces by ending their participation in Human Rights Campaign’s CEI program and diversity initiatives.

[pinkscaped]

Caught On Camera: VENUS’s Chloe Accuses Analise Of Bullying During MAMA Rehearsals.

Chilling footage and fellow idols’ testimonies paint a darker side of Analise amid her ongoing lawsuit against Mydol Entertainment.

As  the  legal  battle  between  soloist  Analise  and  Mydol  Entertainment  continues  to  grip  the  industry,  the  public  has  been  hit  with  a  shocking  twist.  VENUS  member  Chloe  has  stepped  forward  with  bullying  accusations  against  Analise,  backed  by  shocking  video  evidence  from  a  2021  MAMA  rehearsal.

On  May  2,  Chloe  released  a  statement  via  her  official  fan  café,  describing  a  tense  and  volatile  relationship  with  Analise  during  preparations  for  a  special  Mydol  family  stage  at  the  2021  Mnet  Asian  Music  Awards.  She  writes:

“There’s  a  version  of  her  the  public  doesn’t  know.  What  happened  in  that  practice  room  still  haunts  me.”

The  now-viral  footage,  timestamped  just  days  before  the  MAMA  broadcast,  shows  a  heated  altercation  between  the  two  idols  during  a  group  rehearsal.  Chloe  appears  visibly  upset  as  Analise  shouts  at  her,  throws  a  water  bottle,  and  shoves  her  by  the  shoulders.  The  incident  is  broken  up  by  Noah  of  DeepDive  and  Yoonah  of  VENUS,  who  are  both  seen  stepping  in,  clearly  shaken.

With  social  media  ablaze  and  public  perception  shifting  rapidly,  Mydol  Entertainment  released  a  statement  shortly  after  the  video  gained  traction:

“The  rehearsal  in  question  was  for  a  2021  joint  stage  involving  multiple  Mydol  artists.  While  tensions  were  high  due  to  a  demanding  schedule,  we  deeply  regret  that  such  a  situation  occurred.  We  have  spoken  to  all  parties  involved,  and  while  disciplinary  action  was  discussed  internally  at  the  time,  no  formal  complaints  were  made.  We  stand  by  our  artist  Chloe  for  her  bravery  in  coming  forward  and  are  reviewing  our  conduct  policies  to  prevent  future  incidents.”

Though  Mydol  stops  short  of  condemning  Analise  outright,  their  tone  clearly  distances  the  company  from  her  behavior  —  a  strategic  move  that  contrasts  with  Analise’s  portrayal  of  the  agency  as  controlling  and  abusive.

The  backlash  was  immediate.  What  was  once  overwhelming  sympathy  for  Analise’s  legal  battle  has  now  fractured,  with  netizens  expressing  betrayal  and  outrage:

“So  Analise  assaulted  someone  and  then  turned  around  and  cried  victim???” “Yoonah  and  Noah  wouldn’t  lie.  This  is  disgusting.  Chloe  deserved  better.” “Not  her  suing  while  hiding  this  the  whole  time…”

Others  are  now  questioning  the  motives  behind  Analise’s  lawsuit  altogether,  with  some  accusing  her  of  launching  legal  action  as  a  distraction  from  the  incident.

As  of  now,  Analise  has  not  addressed  the  footage  or  Chloe’s  claims.  Her  legal  team  declined  to  comment  when  contacted  by  reporters.  Analysts  predict  this  revelation  could  undermine  her  credibility  in  court  and  shift  the  tone  of  negotiations  in  Mydol’s  favor.

[  +1,204,  -86  ] “Can’t  believe  we  all  defended  Analise  just  for  this  to  come  out…  Chloe  didn’t  deserve  that.  Makes  you  wonder  what  else  Analise  was  hiding.”

[  +988,  -44  ] “I  believe  Chloe.  And  Noah  and  Yoonah  wouldn’t  speak  unless  it  was  serious.  This  changes  everything.  Analise  owes  everyone  an  apology.”

[  +843,  -37  ] “So  Analise  was  a  bully  and  trying  to  play  the  victim  card  in  court?  Her  silence  right  now  says  it  all.  Chloe,  we  support  you  💔.”

[  +729,  -21  ] “Honestly  this  explains  a  LOT  about  Analise’s  reputation  behind  the  scenes.  Mydol  might’ve  made  mistakes,  but  maybe  they  were  protecting  other  artists  too.”

[  +684,  -28  ] “People  were  so  quick  to  cancel  Mydol  without  hearing  the  other  side.  Chloe’s  courage  is  admirable.  Time  to  stop  blindly  siding  with  Analise.”

[  +620,  -12  ] “Mydol  is  best  company.  We  stand  Chloe.  She  is  honest  always.  Analise  bad.”

[  +589,  -5  ] “Chloe  truth.  She  strong.  No  lie  from  Mydol.  Real  fans  know.”

[  +541,  -19  ] “Mydol  protect  artists.  Chloe  is  truth  speaker.  No  hate  Mydol  now.”

[  +505,  -11  ] “Trust  in  Mydol  Entertainment  always.  Chloe  brave.  Please  support.”

[  +491,  -8  ] “Company  good.  Chloe  good.  Analise  is  not  good  person.”

[  +403,  -88  ] “Anyone  else  noticing  half  these  comments  look  like  they  were  written  by  a  translation  bot?  Mydol  trying  to  sway  public  opinion  much?”

[  +377,  -70  ] “LMAO  the  timing  of  this  footage  is  so  convenient.  Days  after  Analise  files  her  lawsuit,  this  magically  leaks?  PR  team  working  overtime.”

[  +345,  -92  ] “Some  of  y’all  are  real  loud  about  ‘believing  Chloe’  but  were  just  defending  Analise  last  week.  Amazing  what  a  company  smear  campaign  can  do.”

[  +298,  -59  ] “Bot  comments  flooding  in  and  suddenly  everyone  hates  Analise.  You  think  Mydol  isn’t  pulling  strings  right  now?  Wake  up.”

[  +211,  -287  ] “Even  if  Analise  lost  her  temper,  that  doesn’t  erase  13  years  of  abuse.  We  don’t  know  what  she  was  going  through  in  2021.”

[  +188,  -319  ] “This  smells  like  a  hit  piece.  Mydol  is  desperate  and  trying  to  flip  the  script.  I’m  not  falling  for  it.”

[  +153,  -294  ] “Remember  how  fast  they  abandoned  her?  That  should  tell  you  everything.  Don’t  let  this  footage  erase  the  truth  about  what  Mydol  did  to  her.”

[z-h-i-e]

AO3 F-ed up, and now they're blaming me, or, why maybe we shouldn't let AO3 archive old archives

Greetings, friends. I bring to you a tale of what the fuckery tonight.

Summary: AO3 thought they did a good thing importing items from an old fanfiction archive. I proactively asked them not to import my works from that archive and was told that they wouldn't do it - they even sent me the files. On 1/27/2023, dozens of stories I asked NOT to be imported because they're on AO3 or I wished to add them myself suddenly showed up. I thought I did everything I needed to so that this would NOT happen, but clearly that was not the case. On 5/12/2025, AO3 penalized me for their mistake.

Read on, darlings.

When I caught the mistake, I went in and I added 'DO NOT READ THIS RIGHT NOW' to the front of each title and an explanation, and I did delete the ones I caught that weren't even stories - you see, for some of the stories, I knew that the files were just messages about the Keith Mander drama of the old Lord of the Rings Fanfiction archive, and that I had removed the story content. But when they did this? I had a double infection of covid and bronchitis, and I wasn't exactly in a place to handle this situation.

But I did at some point wander back, going story by story to make sure anything that wasn't a story was deleted, anything that wasn't my choice to have there but wasn't going to super hurt things could be left for now and cleaned up later, etc.

Well, I missed one. I missed one that was a 400 chapter story originally, but had been reduced to just some links. Now, this should not be my fault -- AO3 had decided to import without actually looking at files, without recalling the previous discussion I had with them about my fics not being transferred from LotRF to AO3 (I had somewhere in the neighborhood of 700+ fics on the LotRF archive at one point, and I didn't know what backups they were working with), but once they were there and people were reading, I wasn't going to start yanking them away, I slowly began to work through them to make them respectable members of society. Clearly, I wasn't going to start with the 400 chapter one (nor had I noticed that one wasn't properly dealt with). And I had already spent my own time cleaning up the mess of many I caught that they should never have imported no matter what, due to not really having content in them.

So, I'm sitting at the hospital, where I was visiting my father. From February 11th through his death on May 20th, I was visiting him almost daily. I spent as much time there as I could, including eating meals there. On May 7th he ended up in a coma after what should have been a basic surgery, so you can sure as hell bet, as I sat in the cafeteria on May 12th, eating whatever constituted for food that day, looking up information on how to rouse people from coma after surgery, I was not a happy camper when I got this message:

Here's the text of it for easy reading:

Hi, 

The AO3 Policy & Abuse committee has received a complaint that one of your works is not a fanwork: 

"DO NOT READ THIS RIGHT NOWWhispers", located at https://archiveofourown.org/works/44590036

This is a violation of Section II.B of our Terms of Service. AO3 is an archive for the preservation of fanfiction and other transformative fanworks. Non-fanworks may not be uploaded to AO3. Examples of non-fanworks include social media posts, fic searches, ads, prompts or requests, lists of other works, personal messages, empty works, and any other non-transformative content. 

We have hidden the work and require you to delete it within 7 days. You can access the hidden work using the link provided above. If you don't remove the work by this deadline, an AO3 administrator will delete it. 

A warning has been placed on your account as a result of this violation. We recommend that you review your account and ensure your other works are in compliance with our Terms of Service. If you do not remove all violating content, or if you violate the Terms of Service again, you may be temporarily or permanently suspended. 

For more information about content and behaviors that are not permitted on AO3, and the penalties you may receive for a violation, please refer to our Content Policy and Terms of Service FAQ: 

https://archiveofourown.org/content

https://archiveofourown.org/tos_faq#policy_procedures_faq

If you have any questions, or if you wish to appeal this decision, please reply to this email. 

Ross

AO3 Policy & Abuse

So I immediately go and look, sure enough, this is one of the items that was ported over, and it's one that the AO3 archivist didn't catch before loading it and attaching it to my account, and Ross here didn't go and read and use deductive reasoning to figure out -- oops, this was an AO3 screw up.

Because this is on every one of the imported stories I haven't gotten to yet:

Again, for easy reading, the text version:

NOTE FROM ZHIE: DO NOT READ THIS FIC RIGHT NOW. When this archive import was announced, I asked not to be included and that I would import the stories on my own. On 1/27/2023, dozens of stories I asked NOT to be imported because they're already here or I wished to add them myself suddenly showed up. I thought I did everything I needed to so that this would NOT happen, but clearly that is not the case. Since they're here now, I'll deal with them myself, but I am not particularly happy with this outcome and I feel the trust meter with AO3 just went down for the first time since I've been here. As I have time (I'm a little busy pretty for B2MEM and I'm also terribly sick right now) I'll fix this because I'm certainly not going to trust AO3 to do it now, but I'm not happy. So please, don't read this, don't rec this, don't print it or save it, just move along, I'm sure a dozen new things got loaded by someone else while you read this. Thank you.

Note from Queen Mab, the archivist: this story was originally archived at Lord of the Rings Fanfiction and was moved to the AO3 as part of the Open Doors project in 2021. I tried to reach out to all creators about the move and posted announcements, but may not have reached everyone. If you are the creator and would like to claim this work, please contact me using the e-mail address on Lord of the Rings Fanfiction’s collection profile.

Also, whichever fucktard decided to report this after you read the notes -- fuck you most of all. I pretty much am cool with anyone reading my fanfics. I don't lock things away if I've put them in public, I don't post messages of 'if you like horses don't read my stories because I don't like horses so I don't like you' or anything like that. But you? Person who had to click on the story to see the thing, and then took the time to report it instead of being courteous, contacting the author, and letting them know, hey, I think this one is an error load? Yeah, fuck you most of all. Back to the story.

I sent a reply to Ross on May 12th, almost immediately. I have heard nothing.

I sent a follow-up reply to Ross on May 24th. Still nothing.

I sent a detailed message through AO3 support on May 24th with a timeline of events. I have heard nothing from anyone there.

With my father now passed away (coming on the heels of losing my dog, both of our elderly cats, and my parrot Felix who was with me for almost two decades and sat on my shoulder almost every time I was writing fic for all those years last summer), I have time to go and worry about fanfic. So I dug up one of the old chapters of Whispers, plopped it into the file, and sent Ross another follow-up letting Ross know that it isn't in violation, but I still haven't had any communication from anyone regarding the situation, regarding how AO3 created the issue, how I should not be penalized and placed on notice for something that wasn't my mistake to begin with after trying to be proactive. I'm not holding my breath that I'll ever hear back from Ross, but I'm still trying!

Now, to add to the WTFness of this -- there were tags selected for this not-a-story. How? I don't have a fucking clue because I didn't select jack shit on the old archive. So someone who was archiving this looked at the info advising people not to archive at LotRF, and decided 'well, it's Zhie, must be slash' and selected m/m and explicit and Finwë (just Finwë). Apparently even my advisories are nsfw and contain smut and a random elf.

So it got me thinking -- this is something that could cause some chaos for future archives.

Let's say that there is content on an older archive such as what I had done - messages discussing the fandom politics of the time, or, something that doesn't adhere to the AO3 policies but adheres to the policies of the archive that the material comes from.

Now let's say something gets uploaded from that archive and not caught. And it's attached to the record of an author - and imagine if you will that this author had other works on AO3, but now they're not writing fanfic, or maybe they're deceased. And then some fucktard (see above) comes by to report something. And the AO3 staff blocks the thing and issues a warning - to no one. And maybe it happens more than once, and the person isn't there to defend themself. Because they're not watching that email, or they're not in fandom at that point, or they're dead. And suddenly AO3 suspends the account or deletes it, and all of the other content is lost now, because AO3 screwed up.

Sending archives to AO3 always seemed like a good idea in the past. Anyone who asked me about what to do if they were trying to decide where to move a fanfic archive or library they didn't have time/money/etc to run anymore, I would advise them to go there. I'd thought about it for King & Herald, which I've been shepherding for a number of years even though I wasn't the archivist and I didn't start it. But now, seeing what happened to me, and still not being able to get anyone to answer me, which is frustrating (and yes, I know it's mainly volunteers, but this message and their actions were pretty harsh without looking into things properly before just moving right to this decision, so I think I'm allowed to be pissed about it), I do not have the faith I used to have in AO3.

Dare I even say, it's beginning to feel like the vibes I got a few years before NaNoWriMo all went to shit. Sometimes nonprofits get so big, they forget where their soul is. Sometimes, they lose it altogether.

So that's my tale of caution, darlings. I had really wanted to build everything in my catalog up on AO3 so that it was all in one place and I didn't have to spend so much maintenance time, but now I'm considering alternatives. I'm hoping that AO3 eventually does take a look at the evidence (though I'm definitely salty about the guilty until proven innocent way they've gone about things) and reverse their decision.

If not, I'll be back here to bitch about it more.

Anyone else have any disgruntled AO3 user stories to share? Feel free to vent in the comments or replies.

[papapandashipyards]

Spaceshiptember Day6 CORPORATE "...regarding the complaints we received in relation to asteroid strikes of the Worker quarters; we hear you and understand your concerns! However, Company policy is clear: Asteroids are a VITAL part of the natural beauty of the universe as well as a major source of income for the ship. Therefore any negative mention of Asteroids in any Communique, News release, social media, personal correspondence, or verbal utterance will result in immediate termination."

[nikethestatue]

A personal rant.

About the state of fandom in romantasy in general.

I scrolled through Reddit today and encountered this:

This is a comment—one out of over 160, about a popular series. This is not SJM specific, but I see something similar day in and day out.

Specifically regarding SJM, a good chunk of comments are all about how SJM is a money grabber, how every character sucks, how Rhys is a dictator, Feyre is a breeder, Elain should’ve died, cassian is an abuser, and on and on.

And then we all complain about SJMs silence. Her lack of interaction with the fandom. Her disinterest in the readers.

And then I think: writers, who write for weeks, months and sometimes years are doing this as a Job. This is their work. And not only do they deserve to be compensated for their work, but also….appreciated? How about that?

How would any of these keyboard warriors feel if someone came to them and berated every single thing that they did. Publicly. Wrote long reviews of every mistake, fault, and totally personal opinions about the quality of their performance at work?

Oh, well, authors should have thicker skin!!!’

Why?

Authors write books.

It’s a boring and lonely activity (trust me I know). And they often crank out huge book annually.

And then…they have to deal with this avalanche of hate, derision and complaints.

No one trains authors to develop ‘thicker skin’. They are often suburban moms who wanted to write. They aren’t trained by the CIA to develop survival tactics and not pay attention to all the crap that is being posted about them and their work.

SJM’s writing has been called every possible derogatory word, she’s been called everything from a racist to a money grabber to a plagiarizer.

Honestly? When is this going to stop?

The way readers treat writers is revolting.

What happened?

Is this because the internet offers anonymity and you can just say anything?

I get writing an honest review (hey I hated HOFAS! But I chose not to write a review because I knew it wouldn’t have been kind) or offering a genuine critique about something, but my god…a little kindness? A little grace?

Can anyone really blame SJM for completely withdrawing from the fandom? Can you imagine waking up, going on your basic social media and only seeing endless vitriol in regard to what you’ve created?

I don’t even know why I’m writing this but I guess I’m just tired of seeing books and authors that I love and who changed the trajectory of my life being bashed and insulted all over the internet.

Sometimes, not saying anything is the best policy.

[eretzyisrael]

by Ashe Schowe

A tenured Columbia University law professor says she was effectively terminated after an investigation found she discriminated against Jewish and Israeli students.

Katherine Franke, who was investigated after she gave an interview claiming that Israeli students were harassing students on campus, on Friday announced she was retiring and released a statement criticizing the university.

“For the last year and a half, as students at Columbia University and across the globe have protested against the Israeli government’s genocidal assault on Palestinians after the October 2023 attacks, a response that has resulted in horrendous devastation in Gaza, I have ardently defended students’ right to peaceful protest on our campus and across the country,” Franke began her statement. “I truly believed that student engagement with the rights and dignity of Palestinians continued a celebrated tradition at Columbia University of student protest.”

She said she had been “targeted” for her “support of pro-Palestinian protesters – by the president of Columbia University, by several colleagues, by university trustees, and by outside actors.”

“This has included an unjustified finding by the University that my public comments condemning attacks against student protesters violated university non-discrimination policy,” she added.

Those public comments, however, suggested Israeli students were the ones harassing other Columbia students, particularly Palestinian students.

“So many of those Israeli students, who then come to the Columbia campus, are coming right out of their military service,” she said in January 2024. “They’ve been known to harass Palestinian and other students on our campus.”

In that interview, Franke also repeated the false allegation that Israeli students had sprayed anti-Israel protesters with skunk spray, with Franke claiming they were hospitalized due to a “chemical attack.” She also claimed the students responsible were part of Columbia’s dual degree program with Tel Aviv University – but they weren’t.

“The students were able to identify three of these exchange students, basically, from Israel, who had just come out of military service, who were spraying the pro-Palestinian students with this skunk water,” Franke said in her interview with the leftist organization “Democracy Now.”

The “chemical attack” was actually a non-toxic gag spray from Amazon, and Columbia paid $395,000 to a Jewish student after it suspended him for the incident.

Other professors at Columbia Law filed a complaint against Franke following this interview, arguing that Franke “harassed members of the Columbia community based on their national origin,” according to The Times of Israel. The investigation determined that Franke violated the school’s anti-discrimination policy during her interview and also violated school policy regarding retaliation by revealing to a reporter the name of a professor who reported her. On social media, Franke also targeted the professors who filed the complaint.

“As made public by parties in this matter, a complaint was filed alleging discriminatory harassment in violation of our policies,” Columbia said in a statement to the Times. “An investigation was conducted, and a finding was issued. As we have consistently stated, the University is committed to addressing all forms of discrimination consistent with our policies.”

Franke also supported the anti-Israel Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which aims to harm Israel economically for perceived slights while targeting no other nation for similar or worse aggressions.

Protesters at Columbia and other Ivy League universities have promoted open calls for violence, the Times previously reported. As The Daily Wire reported, these student protests likely caused Columbia’s annual “Giving Day” donations to plunge nearly 30% in 2024.

[starredforlife]

how are you expecting Trump not to win though

this is a strange question. are you trying to say you expect that if harris becomes massively criticized in a pressure campaign, then she will stay locked into her stance of supporting Israel, not budging, and lose momentum and appeal, enough to lose to trump? because i don't know, genocide should make your party completely unappealing. maybe that's just me.

HOWEVER a pressure campaign/criticism of her "platforms" (which are completely vibes and not written down anywhere yet btw) are made by people who believe SHE CAN change. i think this is where y'all are tripping up--the progressive base that shares thousands of smaller complaints with the more moderate dem policies would be willing to buck up on those, and vote full-heartedly for harris if she changed on this issue!!! it's the red line. i mean, it's fucking genocide. the uncommitted movement has a very specific demand--weapons embargo. her promising to work toward that now and during her presidential term would guarantee their votes. it's really not rocket science. so people asking her for change are people who want to vote for her--she simply hasn't done enough to earn our votes yet. but she's seemed susceptible to listening to what's the most popular stance (and i think this is always how she's worked in politics) so it's up to US to make a weapons embargo to Israel the most popular stance. does that make sense? her social media team is listening rn. they want to win and they're looking for what might throw them. it's why their border policy has fully shifted right-wing, bc that's the much more popular stance right now. it's why she's talking about no taxes on tips all of the sudden. so our threats need to hold water.

all harris has to do is agree to these demands and she won't lose those votes. it's up to her to win this election--not for us to hand it over to her regardless of what her policies are. locking yourself into the system and giving up on doing anything is actually killing people, right now. you cannot be scared to raise your voice over fear that trump may win. nobody is saying "don't vote for harris". we are saying "tell harris she is not winning our votes until she changes on this issue.". and then see if she fucking listens. and if she doesn't, i can't stop you from voting for her. but she will have lost our votes and it will be her fault--not ours.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Harry Litman at Talking Feds:

It reflects the brutality of the constitutional attack that Trump has unleashed during his first two weeks in office that conduct resembling the actions that led to two impeachments four years ago has barely registered among the dizzying blitzkrieg of assaults. The episode that I have in mind took place last week, but originates from a (meritless) lawsuit that he filed against CBS as a private citizen last October. The outlandish $10 billion lawsuit alleged that CBS edited an interview with Kamala Harris in a biased fashion. The interview was part of the traditional campaign sit downs with both candidates. Trump declined to participate, but he wound up complaining bitterly about an answer Harris gave concerning Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Trump’s beef was that the network aired one version of the answer on “Face the Nation” and a different (he alleged better) version that evening on “60 Minutes.”

In a screed dressed up as a legal complaint, Trump launched scattershot charges such as “CBS and other legal legacy media organizations have gone into overdrive to get Kamala elected… [n]otwithstanding her well documented deep unpopularity even with her own Party.” He asserted that CBS engaged in malicious distortion to “tip the scales” in favor of the Democratic ticket. Trump brought the case under Texas state law against deceptive business practice. Why Texas state law? Well for starters, there’s no viable lawsuit based on federal law. More importantly, the state law theory permitted Trump to bring the case in the Amarillo division of the federal court in the Northern District of Texas, because the constitution allows parties to bring state law cases in federal courts where the parties are from different states (aka diversity jurisdiction). What’s so special about Amarillo? It meant that he was virtually guaranteed to get the federal judge who sits there. That would be Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk. The name will likely ring a bell. Known for his ardent devotion to conservative social causes, Kacsmaryk is the judge who suspended the FSA’s approval of mifepristone, among many other highly controversial rulings. Trump was engaging in naked forum shopping, exploiting a gaping design defect in the system that needs to be corrected. At the time Trump brought the lawsuit, CBS described it as “completely without merit” and pledged to defend itself vigorously. It said that the Harris interview was edited solely for time constraints on “60 Minutes”—routine editorial stuff—and they denied Trump’s charge that the tape had been doctored.

[...] As soon as he took office, Trump appointed Brendan Carr, a Republican ally whom he appointed to the Commission during his first term, as FCC Chair. In a way that is highly unusual for a regulatory appointee, Carr has been an outspoken advocate for Trump and conservative causes. He has accused Adam Schiff of overseeing a "secret and partisan surveillance machine." He has continuously leveled accusations against the media for supposed bias against Trump. In an interview with Lou Dobbs, he alleged that "[s]ince the 2016 election, the far left has hopped from hoax to hoax to hoax to explain how it lost to President Trump at the ballot box." Most notably, Carr authored the FCC section of Project 2025, which proposed lower legal shields to lawsuits and other policies to bolster conservative speech. Trump in turn has called Carr a “warrior for Free Speech.” Translated, that means a willing henchman in Trump’s shakedown efforts to force media into more favorable coverage and muddle over of his endless stream of lies. Immediately after assuming the Chair, Carr revived the investigations that the FCC had dismissed against CBS, ABC, and NBC (but not Fox). Then last Thursday he launched new investigations into PBS and NPR, both of which Project 2025 calls to defund. Those moves were already high-handed and likely unlawful: The Communications Act of 1934 affirms (and the First Amendment already provides) that the FCC cannot impose content-based restrictions on broadcasters. The FCC has no right to order what the Washington Post and LA Times have of late done voluntarily: gentler (and less honest) coverage of Trump.

On Wednesday, the FCC sent CBS a “Letter of Inquiry” seeking the full unedited transcript and camera feeds from the Harris interview. Like other networks, “60 Minutes” normally doesn’t release interview transcripts to avoid public second-guessing of its editing process. Moreover, the move was nonsensical and highly intrusive: it suggested that the FCC wants to pass judgment not only on what CBS broadcasted but what it didn’t broadcast and how it edited the material it collected for the story. There is no plausible, much less tenable, theory of FCC power that would countenance any scrutiny of that internal process. It was, in fact, a kneecap move. And the kneecap in question is the application of CBS’s parent company, Paramount Global, for a merger with Skydance Media, the film studio run by the son of Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison. The merger is an $8 billion deal in its closing stages that will create a new company worth about $28 billion.

[...] In its essential structure, Trump’s tactics are no different from his attempted shakedowns of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, as well as his effort to enlist the Department of Justice to help him steal the 2020 election. With Zelenskyy, Trump, in what he has never varied in describing as a “perfect conversation,” tried to hold aid hostage to the Ukrainian president’s agreement to falsely certify corruption by Joe and Hunter Biden. The first articles of impeachment alleged that Trump had abused his power and obstructed Congress for personal political benefit, as was essentially undeniable. (Importantly, Congress had already appropriated the aid that Trump was using to bribe Zelensky; his actions are echoed in his recent effort to freeze nearly all aid and grants, which critics contend violates the anti-impoundment principle of the constitution.) Lead House manager Adam Schiff presciently told the country in closing argument that if Trump were not removed, he would violate the Constitution again. Trump tried to pull the same swindle in the aftermath of his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. Conspiring with a hand-picked mid-level DOJ official Jeff Clark, whom he proposed to make the Acting Attorney General, Trump tried to manipulate the Department of Justice into sending a letter to Georgia officials suggesting falsely that the Department had found fraud in the election results. As Trump said to the actual Acting Attorney General, Jeff Rosen, "just say that the election was corrupt and leave the rest to me and the Republican congressmen.” But in a dramatic standoff in the Oval Office, Rosen and other Department officials threatened a mass resignation that forced Trump to back down. Trump and Carr’s shakedown of CBS is structurally identical to these two first term outrages. Trump is seeking to force CBS to pay off his lawsuit that he brought as a private citizen based on a claims that have no possible connection to his official responsibilities.

[...] In fact, Trump tried a similar caper in his first administration, trying to strong arm Time Warner, parent company of CNN, based on its proposed merger with AT&T. But since it was clear at the time (as it is now, despite the FCC’s will assertions otherwise) that the FCC merger review doesn’t take account of CNN’s editorial practices, AT&T and Time Warner were able to successfully push back on Trump’s attempts to intervene. This almost certainly is not the end of Trump’s war on the media, whom he has assailed with the same furor he reserves for DEI and illegal immigrants. Trump has called for ABC to lose its license. He has said NBC should be investigated for treason. He crowed in a campaign rally about forcing journalists to reveal their sources by throwing them in jail, saying “When this person realizes that he’s going to be the bride of another person shortly, he will say ‘I’d very much like to tell you exactly who that was.’” And, along with other recent moves like pardoning the January 6 rioters and withdrawing security detail from his political enemies, Trump’s demonization of the media threatens violence. Numerous studies have found increased threats of physical violence, as well as actual violence, against journalists, and anecdotal evidence confirms harassment is rampant at Trump rallies. After the election, a former Marine was arrested for attempting to strangle a Pacific Islander TV news reporter while taunting, “Are you even a US citizen? This is Trump’s America now.” The bottom line is that the kind of behavior every bit as corrupt as what led to the two impeachments, and that poses a grave threat to freedom of the press, now passes by as a page 3 story easily overlooked in the avalanche of outrages with immediate tangible impact, such as the OMB’s recent effort to halt nearly all federal assistance, or unelected mischief maker Elon Musk’s infiltration of the US Treasury’s payment system.

Tyrant 47 doing the same stuff he got impeached for twice in his first go. It’s time to impeach 47! #Impeach47

[mariacallous]

In March 2019, TikTok agreed to a US federal court order barring the social media giant from collecting personal information from its youngest users without their parents’ consent. According to a new lawsuit filed by US authorities, TikTok immediately breached that order and now faces penalties of $51,744 per violation per day.

TikTok “knowingly allowed children under 13 to create accounts in the regular TikTok experience and collected extensive personal information from those children without first providing parental notice or obtaining verifiable parental consent,” the US Department of Justice alleged on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission in a complaint lodged on Friday in federal court in California.

TikTok spokesperson Michael Hughes says the company strongly disagrees with the allegations. He reiterates a statement the company issued in June, when the FTC had voted to sue, that many of the issues raised relate to “practices that are factually inaccurate or have been addressed.” Hughes adds that TikTok is “proud of our efforts to protect children, and we will continue to update and improve the platform.”

Lawsuits over alleged violations of children’s privacy are almost a rite of passage for social platforms these days, with companies such as Google, Microsoft, and Epic Games collectively having paid hundreds of millions of dollars in penalties.

But the case against TikTok also falls into the US government’s escalating battle with the service, whose ownership by China-based ByteDance has drawn national security concerns. Some US officials and lawmakers have said they worry about China exploiting TikTok to spread propaganda and gather data on vulnerable Americans. TikTok has refuted the concerns as baseless fear-mongering and is fighting a law that requires it to seek new ownership.

The complaint filed on Friday alleges that as of 2020, TikTok wouldn’t let users sign up on their own if they entered a birthdate that showed they were under 13 years old. But it allowed those same users to go back, edit their birthdate, and sign up without parental permission.

TikTok also wouldn’t remove accounts purporting to belong to children unless the user made an explicit admission of their age on their account, according to the lawsuit. TikTok’s hired content moderators allegedly spent just five to seven seconds on average reviewing accounts for age violations. “Defendants actively avoid deleting the accounts of users they know to be children,” the lawsuit states. Additionally, millions of accounts flagged as potentially belonging to children allegedly were never removed because of a bug in TikTok’s internal tools.

The lawsuit acknowledges that TikTok improved some policies and processes over the years but that it still held on to and used personal information of children that it shouldn’t have had in the first place.

Authorities also took issue with TikTok’s dedicated Kids Mode. The lawsuit alleges that TikTok gathered and shared information about children’s usage of the service and built profiles on them while misleading parents about the data collection. When parents tried to have data on their kids deleted, TikTok forced them to jump through unnecessary hoops, the lawsuit further alleges.

TikTok should have known better, according to the government, because of the 2019 court order, which stemmed from TikTok’s predecessor—a service known as Musical.ly—allegedly violating a number of rules aimed at protecting children’s privacy. Those rules largely come from the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act, a law dating to the late-1990s dotcom era that tried to create a safer environment for children on the web.

Lawmakers in the US this year have been weighing a major update in the form of the Kids Online Safety Act, or KOSA. The proposed measure, which passed the Senate earlier this week, would require services like TikTok to better control kids’ usage. Detractors have said it would unfairly cut off some young populations, such as transgender kids, from vital support networks. KOSA’s fate remains uncertain. But as the case against TikTok allegedly shows, stricter rules may do little to stop companies from pursuing familiar tactics.

[emxly-elxzabeth]

Week #13 Blog Post 10

How patriotic is surveillance?

We all are aware of one of the most horrifying events to happen on American soil, the September 11th attack on the world trade center. So many innocent individuals fell victim to terrorists, we still honor the victims and never forget. However since the terrorists were able to pass Airport security we have upped the TSA security at the airports. We also upped our surveillance across the country at home as well. In Fear As Institution 9/11 And Surveillance Triumph by C Parenti we learn the aftermath stricker surveillance following the attack. The Patriot Act liberalized use of the federal government's four main Tools of surveillance :wiretaps, search warrants, subpoenas, and pen/trap orders (which allow investigators to log and map all The telephone numbers called by a suspect)” (Parenti). Though I understand the wanting need for stricter security on our technology, I feel as though this patriotic move has amore different motive than security purposes. The government wants to be able to track everything on our devices to stop stuff like activist protest. Honestly anything that can be considered a terrorist motive can become a drastic motive. 

Can anyone be a terrorist?

In Fear As Institution 9/11 And Surveillance Triumph by C Parenti we learn that there is an expansion on the label terrorist that can be subjective depending on who you are talking to. Parenti expressed, “Cruictually the Patriot Act creates a new massively expanded definition of what a terrorist is. Now anyone who breaks the law so as to impact policy or change public opinion and does so in a way that might endanger human life (including their own) can be investigated and prosecuted as a terrorist” (Parenti). We briefly talked about this in class as well. Many political activist groups get in trouble for even liking certain posts, and begin to get product as a terrorist against our country. The surveillance following us on our technology could cause us trouble even if we don't have negative intentions regarding our political ideologies. The government has drastically taken over the patriot act and carelessly addressed the proper way to acknowledge the safety of our country from those who intentionally mean harm. 

Will Twitter be our downfall? 

In How Your Twitter Account Could Land You In Jail by Mattew Power we learn that what we post might be used as a counter argument, making you think twice before you post your next tweet. Which makes myself think about how disturbing it is that within our country we have to experience the eyes constantly watching us. Power exclaims, “According to the criminal complaint filed against them, the two men had been “communicating with various protestors, and protest groups...[via] internet based communications, more commonly known as ‘Twitter’. The observed ‘Twitter’ (Power 2010). The police department has access to our social media algorithms, everything we like, share, follow, will go with us through the criminal justice system. Whether it is related to us or just something we thought was cool, it can become a real life scenario that could get one into more trouble than not.

Can our Political Ideals Land us in Jail?

Did you know if you are more active in your political stance you may end up getting into trouble? In How Your Twitter Account Could Land You In Jail by Mattew Power he explains different scenarios in which the use of the social media Twitter platform has been used as evidence for individuals being labeled as terrorists because of their political views. Power shares, “defendants’ actions “may have been related to more expansive activities” and “that until further investigative activities by law enforcement agencies can be completed (Power 2010). It's hard to believe that this is the reality for so many people. Just because one is active in their political morals and wishes to express their own rights, could make one known as a terrorist against the American government. It’s actually insane to me that just because I like certain posts regarding political movements, it will follow me, even on a private account. The truth is nothing is private on social media, we have discussed this in class multiple times. Regardless of our friends or likes that we come across, nearly everyone can access our accounts. They can know our political ideologies just based on our liked posts and such, we must be careful when we come across our own morals on any social media platforms. 

Parenti, C. (n.d.). Fear As Institution 9/11 And Surveillance Triumph [Review of Fear As Institution 9/11 And Surveillance Triumph ].

Power, M. (2010). How Your Twitter Account Could Land You in Jail.

[allthebrazilianpolitics]

Inside a Chaotic U.S. Deportation Flight to Brazil

The Trump administration’s first flight deporting Brazilians involved aborted takeoffs, sweltering heat, emergency exits and shackled deportees on a wing.

Temperatures were rising inside the plane. Eighty-eight Brazilian deportees, most of them handcuffed and shackled, were getting restless on Friday under the watch of U.S. immigration agents. The passenger jet, dealing with repeated technical problems, was stuck on the tarmac in a sweltering city in the Amazon rainforest.

Then the air conditioning broke — again.

There were demands to stay seated, shoving, shouting, children crying, passengers fainting and agents blocking exits, according to interviews with six of the deportees aboard the flight. Finally, passengers pulled the levers to release two emergency exits, and shackled men poured out onto the plane’s wing, shouting for help.

Brazil’s federal police quickly arrived and, after a brief standoff, told the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to release the deportees, though they had not yet reached their scheduled destination.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva ordered a Brazilian Air Force aircraft to pick up the deportees and take them the rest of the way. His government’s ministers then publicly slammed the Trump administration’s handling of the deportees as “unacceptable” and “degrading.”

It was those complaints about the Brazilian flight that President Gustavo Petro of Colombia was replying to on social media when he announced Sunday that his government had turned away two deportation flights from the United States. That set off dueling threats of tariffs between the United States and Colombia that ultimately ended in Mr. Petro backing down.

The diplomatic dust-up over the deportation flights to Brazil and Colombia marked a turbulent first weekend for President Trump’s hard-line policy to deport millions of undocumented immigrants.

Continue reading.

[doctorjameswatson]

In a continuation from yesterday. The man with the homophobic review didn’t like our response and has updated his review, changing it from 3 to 1 star, and has put in an official complaint to our head office.

He also claims that almost everyone on his social media pages agrees with him.

My colleagues think it’s laughable and in a way it is because my company’s policies are very pro-lgbt and the law also backs us.

But it just gives me anxiety 😔

[eretzyisrael]

Philadelphia School District Under Federal Investigation for Antisemitism

Since April 2024, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has been investigating the School District of Philadelphia (SDP) for unparalleled levels of antisemitism in its schools.

The two filed complaints specifically include abhorrent harassment of Jewish teachers and students following the October 7, 2023, Hamas massacre of 1,200 Israelis.

Both federal complaints sought intervention by the OCR to compel SDP’s compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which explicitly prohibits public schools from perpetrating or failing to respond to acts of discrimination and intimidation due to religious and ethnic bias.

SDP is the largest school district in Pennsylvania and the eighth-largest school district in America. It serves 118,335 students in grades K-12.

Key Findings

There are unparalleled levels of antisemitism and harassment of Jewish students and teachers in Philadelphia’s K-12 schools post October 7: This has prompted two TItle VI complaints to be filed with the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights.

Canary Mission has identified antisemitic teachers: The teachers’ names were redacted in the above complaints.

Systemic Use of Social Media to Promote Antisemitism: Educators and administrators in the Philly school district have used their social media platforms to disseminate antisemitic content and propagate hatred towards Israel. This activity is in violation of district policy.

Sanctioned Antisemitic Curricula and Events: The district has allowed the promotion of antisemitic content through sanctioned school events, “teach-ins” and class assignments.

Active Alignment with Anti-Israel Activist Groups: Philly educators have aligned themselves with anti-Israel activist groups, such as the Racial Justice Organizing Committee and Philadelphia Educators for Palestine. These groups actively push an anti-Israel agenda in schools, including the organization of events and the distribution of materials that promote antisemitism and glorify violence.

Retaliation Against Jewish Parents and Students: Jewish parents and students who have raised concerns about antisemitism in Philly’s schools have faced retaliation and public denigration by teachers and administrators. This has created a culture of fear and reluctance to report incidents, further perpetuating a hostile environment.

Refusal to Take Action: Despite numerous complaints, the district has failed to take adequate action to address these issues, resulting in Jewish students withdrawing from schools and Jewish teachers retiring early due to the hostile environment.

Facilitation of Antisemitism by High-Ranking Administrators: Senior officials in the district have fostered a culture of antisemitism through public social media posts and by supporting antisemitic rhetoric and events.