#thing in the world while replying to 90% of anyone elses contributions with 'what does that matter'
Explore tagged Tumblr posts
Text
shout out to 'analyzing conversations w my dad and realising where half my dysfunction and social anxiety comes from'
#i love him i do#but hes a middle aged cishet man. he operates and has always operated on the idea that whatever hes talking about is the most interesting#thing in the world while replying to 90% of anyone elses contributions with 'what does that matter'#i wonder why i am such a good listener but struggle to give back anything during a conversatiom cuz nothing i have to say feels worth it.#i wonder
0 notes
Note
Love your analyses. (You are to Sanditon what jbuffyangel was to Arrow.) Question about 1x03, When Sidney asks Charlotte for “feedback,” her first question is why didn’t he help Tom more. When Sidney says it wasn’t fair. he’d done all he could, she says, ”Have you?” Did she inadvertently contribute to the demise of her own relationship? Sidney is a loyal brother, but he’s also already in love with Charlotte and, whether he realizes it or not, wants her approval.
Before we get started on the ask, I would like to thank everyone who has sent me messages or asks over the past few days. I really appreciate your guys’ interest in my blog and Sanditon opinions and it’s immensely satisfying to me to play a part in the growth of the very new Sanditon fandom.
I have many Sanditon related projects in the works at the moment, namely a new fanfic one shot that should be uploaded in the next couple of days, a very exciting meta that I think you’ll all love and I need to get started on my Christmas fic if I am to finish by the middle of December as I have announced. All of that in addition to my and Mrs. @kitten1618x ‘s Sanditioncreative blog which will be hosting the first Sanditon Christmas event this year.
All of this is to say that I might not be answering your questions as quickly as I would otherwise. If that happens, please don’t get discouraged! I will answer ALL asks eventually, whenever I find the time to work on them. To that end, I would also kindly ask all of you to please send your asks solely to my ask me anything inbox because if you send it via replies or private message, they will end up getting lost and I will forget to answer them.
Hope this works for everyone! Let’s get to the ask …
Oh, nonnie … I’m pretty sure you had no idea what you were getting yourself into when you sent this ask but strap in … because the time has finally come to talk about …
Tom THE WORST Parker
Leaving aside the torch and pitchfork party we’ve all thrown for Tom, I do think we should take a moment and give Kris Marshall a shout out for an outstanding job playing this character. Look at the desperation in his eyes, the strained smile, the implied pressure he is applying on his target (Sidney as per 90% of the time). He even does that annoying calling people over with your hand as if they were your dog thing that drives me nuts!
Fortunatelylori: Put the hand away, Tom, unless you want me to cut it off! Arghhh!!!
Now, you might rightly ask why we’re going to talk about Tom when your ask is about Charlotte and how she might have ended up sabotaging herself.
The thing to keep in mind is that Charlotte Heywood is our entry point into Sanditon. We are being introduced to this world and these characters through her eyes. So we are inclined to take her opinion on everything that is occurring as gospel. However, we should remember a few things about Charlotte: despite having excellent instincts and insight into people, she is still very much a young, inexperienced girl who has lived a very sheltered life. In addition to that, she is very kind hearted and a true romantic.
All of that makes her prone to having better opinions of people than she should at times. For example, she thinks Otis is “a good man who made one terrible mistake” because she doesn’t truly grasp the seriousness of his gambling addiction and because she feels that if he truly loves Georgiana then he can’t really be bad.
Her opinion of Tom is similar to that. Tom is, if not a nice man (he isn’t but we’ll get to that), he’s at the very least a pleasant one and that outward ease and friendliness makes her empathize with him.
On the other hand, her major issue with Sidney is her inability to figure him out and his desire to keep people at arm’s length:
Charlotte: You are determined to remain an outlier. God forbid you give something of yourself!
Sidney: Please do not presume to know my mind, Miss Heywood!
Charlotte: How can anyone know your mind? You take great pains to remain unknowable.
Again and again, she reproaches him for not being more involved with Georgiana, for not helping Tom, for trying to separate himself from those around him. And while there is truth to what she’s telling him, it also reveals that Charlotte can be easily taken in by people who display affection and/or involvement towards others, even if the cost of that is very steep.
She judges Sidney harshly for not behaving that way, while allowing Otis and Tom to get away with their bad behavior because they do involve themselves in people’s lives and give “proof” of caring and thus make Charlotte think they are inherently good people. However, what she fails to see is the selfish reasons behind those characters’ actions.
I did reblog a gif set of Charlotte telling Sidney to help Tom more and made the joke that she shot herself in the foot. But that was me joking and noting the dramatic irony that the writing employs.
The serious interpretation of Charlotte’s line isn’t that she unknowingly acted towards the demise of her own love story but rather that she completely misunderstood the dynamic of the Tom/Sidney relationship.
In her mind, it was Sidney who held all the power in his relationship with his brother, as the younger, more handsome, more successful sibling to the put upon and fate tested idealist Tom. As such, Sidney’s “refusal” to help him seemed petty and cruel to sweet angel Charlotte who is utterly fascinated by what Tom is doing in Sanditon
And by and large I think the viewers have also bought into that image of Tom and Sidney.
But I would like to propose a different interpretation:
There is no reason to assume that Sidney wasn’t helping Tom prior to Charlotte calling him on it. Why else would he have dragged Crowe and Babbington to the ball in episode 1? Why else was he getting his liver smashed in, boxing for their entertainment or playing at cards in the hotel restaurant? Why else would Tom talk about Sidney “profiting” from the success of Sandition if Sidney had not already invested in his brother’s project?
The problem isn’t that Sidney isn’t helping him. The problem is that Tom has an endless list of things he needs help with:
Sidney: At least this time I leave knowing you are in good heart. A new physician, a new regatta to plan. All is well with Tom Parker.
Tom: So it would seem … Oh, I say … I’m … I just wonder if while you’re in London you could stop by the bank for me and see if they might consider extending …
First he needs help attracting fashionable people to Sanditon. Sidney provides them. However, as he points out, there isn’t enough entertainment in Sanditon to make it worth their stay. I would suggest that’s Tom’s fault, not Sidney’s.
On that note, remember what Eliza said during the regatta:
Eliza: At the last regatta I attended, they raced Arab stallions. The one before that featured 18 clippers in full sail. But for sheer exhilaration what could compare to a sand castle competition?
Leaving aside that this is Eliza and we all hate her, what does this tell you about Tom and his understanding of his clientele? Because it seems to me he wants Sanditon to be the Regency’s version of Monaco while offering the quaint entertainment of whatever seaside resort your granny goes to.
He then reveals that he has financial troubles and needs money and eventually sends Sidney hat in hand to beg the banks for a loan. Sidney doesn’t want to do it at first because he knows there’s no point to it but because Charlotte made him feel guilty, he relents. The result is what he already knew: no more credit for Tom. This is Tom’s reaction:
Tom: No, no! That is not possible! Clearly you forgot to explain about the regatta. We are soon to be the most popular resort on the South Coast. Did you even mention Dr. Fuchs?
Sidney: Tom, I spoke to 3 different banks, at lenght. Not one of them is willing to extend your credit any further.
Tom: What do you suggest I do now, Sidney? What exactly do I do now?
Look at that violent, desperate reaction! That’s what emotional blackmail looks like. And that, my friends, is abuse. Because in one fell swoop Tom has not only put the blame on Sidney for something that is out of his control (Sidney can’t force the bank to give Tom money) but also put the eventual consequences Tom will face squarely on Sidney’s shoulders.
Also Tom decides to go buy necklaces for his wife instead of paying his workers. When they argue with him at the cricket match, he walks away in a fit, leaving Sidney, and Charlotte, to clean up the mess. It’s also up to Sidney to resolve the workers’ problems by “loaning” Tom the money to pay them. I’ve put loan between “” because one has to be truly naïve to think Tom would have ever paid that loan back.
I would suggest that Tom is an irresponsible, selfish man and a terrible businessman who doesn’t need help. What he needs is a business partner that will control his terrible decision making and handle all of the business aspects of Sanditon while Tom scribbles away at his architecture plans (plans that I suspect were mostly created by James Stringer and that Tom is taking credit for).
And on some level, I think, Sidney knows that as well, which is why he fights Tom’s desire to involve him in the running of Sanditon at every turn:
Sidney: I’m sorry but I have done everything you’ve asked of me, Tom. I’m not your keeper. I will gladly own my mistakes but I cannot own yours.
Oh, you sweet summer child …
I don’t think it’s Sidney’s dream to manage a seaside resort, not is it his responsibility. His brother is an adult who should be held accountable for his own actions. However, at the rate this story is going, running Sanditon while Tom gets all the credit for its success is exactly what Sidney will end up doing.
His reluctance to get more sucked into Tom’s schemes in the beginning, I think, has less to do with Sidney being a bad person or an outlier and more to do with knowing that once he relents, there will be no end to Tom’s demands on him and he will end up being his keeper for all eternity.
Episode 8 also reveals something very interesting about the entire Parker family: they are all enablers of Tom’s bullshit. Arthur is the first to offer up his inheritance on a silver platter, Diana refuses to let him blame himself and Mary is ready with a love declaration the moment Tom shades one crocodile tear.
Despite being the hardest one to crack out of all of them, Sidney is ultimately one more enabler to Tom. He hops on the first carriage to London and gives up his life in order to spare Tom prison time.
From where I’m sitting, the dynamic of these 2 brothers is the complete opposite from what Charlotte estimated. It is Tom that holds all the power and he and Sidney are involved in a toxic relationship that has been going on long before Charlotte ever met either one of them. Perhaps it started the moment Tom paid Sidney’s debts before he sailed to Antigua. Perhaps it started long before that.
However, I don’t think Charlotte’s intervention in episode 3 influenced Sidney’s final decision. What ultimately sealed the deal on that was the emotional blackmail Tom has been inflicting on Sidney for years, Tom’s expectation that everyone in his life do everything to service him and his family’s compliance with those wishes and, not least of it, Sidney’s lack of selflove that allowed him to prioritize his brother’s temporary stint in prison (he could have worked to pay off Tom’s debts over time; there’s no law that says Tom had to be in prison forever) over his own permanent misery.
I’m not sure this was the turn you were expecting my answer to take but I hope you found it useful nonetheless.
152 notes
·
View notes
Text
Fund
Summary: Peter overshares. Tony oversteps. Things spiral from there.
Or Tony holds Peter’s college fund over his head and Peter doesn’t get into MIT.
As always, it’s on Ao3!
Author’s Note: Inspired by Running by Builder, specifically Tony's line, "I’ll go flush your college fund down the toilet while I’m at it," and also I'm a sucker for an angsty argument. Definitely check it out!
Also, I haven’t written all summer so... sorry?
The world goes out of focus. The Stark lab fades at the edges. The device he’s been tinkering with blurs. Everything appears as if under a gray film. All Peter can think about is that number, bold on the top of his English grade report for senior year.
78.
Not failing, not even really close to failing, but the worst grade Peter has had all year, the worst grade he’s ever had in a class his entire life. He can’t even pin it down to one assignment. He’s just been regularly scoring low on his essays. Not many people in the class get 90s on the essays but even compared to everyone else, Peter’s have been… lower.
He’s not disappointed necessarily. He knows he’s been working as hard as he can. He knows there are bigger things in the world than English class. (Spider-man. The Avengers. Actually saving people’s lives.) But now that he has to get the proof signed by May, he feels shame seep into him. And he knows that’s exactly what it is. Shame.
He’s ashamed over a tiny number that, against the grand scheme of things, is inconsequential, and he’s angry at himself for feeling ashamed, and his anger is almost always badly channeled frustration, and when he’s frustrated, he cries.
Which is exactly why he’s staring into space, trying to will away the tears collecting in his eyelashes.
He takes a deep breath as slowly as he can. Tries to exhale evenly. He brings up a hand to shield his eyes and hide them from where Tony sits a few seats down.
The 360 degrees cameras don’t help. Neither does FRIDAY’s watchful eye.
Red text scrolls across the screen in front of Tony. Peter’s gaze flicks over to the light.
Peter seems to be in distress, it reads.
Tony immediately swivels to face him and Peter stiffens, angling his back towards the adult. Peter sucks in a breath and grips the collar of his shirt, trying to be as inconspicuous as possible as he wipes away the tears.
“Hey kid,” Tony calls. Peter hums and nods. He doesn’t turn around. “All good in the hood over there?”
“Yep.” And yep, nope, that definitely did not help his case, not with that choked voice.
“Mm, sure about that, bud?”
Peter swallows down mucus and clears his throat. “Sure, Mr. Stark.”
“Yeah, that’s what I want to hear except I don’t really believe you so-” Tony starts rolling his chair towards Peter. “Here I come.”
Peter huffs out a laugh at the sight. “Are you scooting over to me, Mr. Stark?”
“Don’t be a smartass. Scooting is the most practical way to move in these chairs, I’ll have you know,” Tony says as he stops in front of Peter. “Now come on, out with it. What’s up?”
Peter’s smile dies out and Tony’s follows suit.
“It’s really stupid. Honestly, it’s really dumb.” Peter twists his fingers together.
“Peter, I’m sure it’s not. And even if it is, I still want to hear about it.”
“Right, okay, so… Yeah, well… I’m…” Peter’s nose scrunches before he gives a sigh. “I have a 78 in my English class. A 78 percent. It’s so bad, I mean…” He groans, hand rubbing down his face. “I guess it’s not that bad. It’s not like I’m failing or anything but it’s just really frustrating, you know? Well, you probably don’t know, you’ve been a genius since you were born. And I don’t want to make excuses, right? But it’s just hard being Spider-man and all the school work and she just- my teacher, I mean- she grades so hard. I keep offering to do extra credit for her but she says you get what you get or you shouldn’t write your papers last minute or whatever. But I’m not! I’m putting in so much work and she’s ignoring that I’m even trying. You know?”
Tony doesn’t interrupt, only nods along. His gaze is thoughtful.
Peter fidgets. He maintains a scant few seconds of quiet before he breaks again. “And I just… I don’t want to tell May. I know I have to but…” Peter fixes his eyes on the floor as they begin to water. “I’m supposed to be the smart one. That’s what her and Ben used to call me. Their smart boy. Their brilliant boy. She was so proud when I got into Midtown and… and this is just so dumb.”
Peter blinks, tears in his eyelashes. He swipes at them with the heel of his palm.
“Sounds like this teacher is a real piece of work,” Tony finally contributes.
“Yeah.” Peter gives a shaky smile. “You could say that.”
“Tell you what.” Tony puts a hand on Peter’s shoulder. “Have a good time this weekend. Go out with your friends, party, what you millenials get up to. Go back to school on Monday with a clear head. Things will work themselves out.”
“Okay,” Peter agrees, though he doubts things will simply work themselves out. Tony grins back at him.
“Great. Now let’s get back to work.”
Peter walks into English on Monday to find a substitute teacher. He doesn’t think on it until Ned leans over across his desk and whispers, “I don’t think Ms. Jones is coming back. I heard Flash say the school fired her over some stuff they found on her computer.”
First comes the guilt, sweeping down into his gut. And then Peter can’t help it. His blood boils.
“Mr. Stark!”
Peter swings through the open door of Tony’s penthouse balcony. Tony looks up from his coffee and tablet at the kitchen table, eyebrows raised in surprise.
“Wasn’t expecting you today, kiddo. What you visiting me up here on cloud 9 for?”
Peter rips his mask off, fuming, “You got my teacher fired!”
“Did I?” Tony takes a sip of his coffee. “Certainly no one’s going to be able to trace anything back to me or FRIDAY, so who can say, really? And so there’s no way anyone can blame you, so don’t even worry about it. You’re welcome.”
“No!” Peter’s hands clench into fists. “I can’t believe you- you- I may not have liked her but she wasn’t a bad teacher, okay? She didn’t deserve to be fired!”
“Look, kid, it’s not like I discredited her. I can help her find a job, if it’s bothering you that much. Hell, I could get her a job at Stuyvesant.” Tony stands up and Peter tenses before realizing Tony’s only putting his mug in the sink. “She was giving you a hard time. Why are we even having this conversation?”
“Because you can’t get everything you want, just because you have the money or just because you can! You can’t just tamper with my life without telling me!” His hands clench into fists. “You can’t ruin other people’s lives because I say something to you! It’s not your job!”
“It’s not like I’m doing this for shits and giggles, kid. I’m doing this for you. She may not know you’re Spider-man, but I sure as hell do, and I’m not going to let some pretentious old lady give you a 78 while you’re out saving New York.” Tony’s fiery gaze lands on Peter. “I’m sure she got plenty of satisfaction wracking up red marks on your papers, so what’s the problem if I get some satisfaction from knocking her down a few pegs?”
Peter scowls. “Is that what this is about? Satisfaction? Is this even about me at all?”
“Of course it is, Peter. She’s not going to give you a hard time anymore, is she? As far as I’m concerned, that’s problem solved.” Tony wipes his hands together, like he’s free of the matter.
“That’s not the point,” Peter growls.
Tony sighs, clearly aggravated as he runs a hand through his hair and asks, “Then what is the point?”
“The point,” Peter screams, “is that you’re not my dad!”
“Oh, that’s the point, is it?” Tony’s eyes narrow. “Well, I hate to break it to you, son,” he spits the word. “But I might as damn well be. Sure, I’m not in bed with your Aunt May-”
“Don’t-” Peter doesn’t get to finish.
“-but who do you think is paying your aunt’s raise, huh? You think that’s the hospital, rewarding her years of hard work? Where do you think that extra cash for your debit card is coming from? What about your tax refunds for this last year? Who do you think paid the medical bills when Aunt May had to get extra shots?” Tony steps towards Peter as he rants, growing louder with every word.
Peter takes a hesitant step back.
“And don’t even get me started on how much money I’ve poured into your college fund because I know you’re smart, Peter, invented that web fluid yourself and all, but come on. I know you wanna go to MIT. College don’t pay for itself. So yeah,” Tony flings out his arms. “I’m not your dad. I’m not even your Uncle Ben. But you better believe I’m acting like it.”
“So I’m supposed to thank you?” Peter scoffs. “All of that is just money. You can’t buy yourself a family.”
“I am not-”
“And I don’t even want your stupid money! I didn’t ask for it, did I? You can flush my college fund down the drain for all I care! I won’t use it anyway! I don’t need you!” Peter’s shaking but he holds his ground.
Tony’s voice is flat, even, as he replies, “You don’t want my help. You don’t want my money. Fine.” His face hardens. “But don’t come crying to me when you’re looking for a new sugar daddy.”
“I won’t,” Peter snarls, throwing his mask back on.
He doesn’t look back.
Peter sends in his scores. He sends in his resume. He sends in his supplements.
He doesn’t send in that recommendation letter Mr. Stark always promised.
It’s not like the movies anymore, big envelopes coming in the mail and elation before the package is even opened. Getting the decision letter is a process now. It’s waiting for the college to email when the results are finally released and logging into the admissions portal and waiting for the screen to load at 6:28 while 20,000 candidates try to get their results.
They say you should be alone when you receive your decision.
Peter is inordinately glad he is. Because he reads the words, Dear Peter, I am very sorry- and he loses it a little bit.
It’s a little bit of his heart stuttering and a little bit of his breath catching and a little bit of a burn in his eyes.
He skims the letter, bites his lip, and reads it three more times.
Mr. Stark will be so disappointed in him. Embarrassed by him.
No.
Peter slams his laptop shut. Mr. Stark won’t even know this happened. They haven’t talked since the fight and after all, if there ever really was a college fund, it was clearly intended for Peter to attend MIT. Which he will not be doing.
He should have let Mr. Stark write the recommendation. But if he needed the recommendation to get in and he couldn’t do it on his own merit, maybe he shouldn’t be admitted at all.
Getting in on his own merit? It’s not like the admissions committee knows he’s Spider-Man and for a completely irrational moment, Peter is seized by the regret that he didn’t write that in his supplements. That he should have disclosed his formulas for webs, his designs for web shooters, his secret identity.
It’s easy to turn away Peter Parker but Spider-Man? They would have-
Peter shakes his head, pushing his laptop towards the end of his bed with his feet. He curls up in his hoodie, not even bothering with the bed sheets. He stoically ignores Aunt May when she knocks on his door with dinner.
He doesn’t raise his head again until May eases into his room with a plate of cookies. She nudges at his shoulder, murmuring, “I know you want one, Peter.”
The smell, fresh baked and chocolatey, finally gets him.
He sits up and May’s face softens as she takes in his red and swollen eyes. Peter takes a cookie with a small thanks and chews it as slowly as he can. It hurts to swallow past the thickness in his throat.
Peter takes another bite. Chews. Swallows.
“I didn’t get in.”
“Oh, Pete,” May sighs. She runs a hand down his arm with a sad smile. “I know that was your dream school, but it’s so hard to get into those kinds of colleges. Hardly anyone makes it in! It doesn’t mean you’re not a brilliant kid. There’s no way to know what kinds of things they’re looking for.”
“I know. I know it was long shot but-” Peter chokes. “Mr. Stark got in when he was fifteen. And I couldn’t even… I couldn’t even…”
“Oh, baby.” May pulls him to her chest and he resists for a second before giving in, leaning into her. She doesn’t say anything about his heaving breaths or dripping tears.
The first of May rolls around. Peter makes a decision. It’s a decision made out of partiality. It’s also a decision made out of finance.
He doesn’t regret his final choice. He just wishes he had more options.
He just wishes he could get over the sting of rejection as he commits to somewhere to spend the next four years of his life.
Summer is almost here. Peter has his graduation robes, his cap, his tassels.
It’s been months since he last talked to Mr. Stark. Like a hole in his heart, Peter misses him. He still pictures Mr. Stark in the bleachers with Aunt May as he walks out to receive his diploma. He thinks of the proud smile he so desperately wants to see and he thinks of the taste of failure bitter in his mouth.
He owes it to Mr. Stark, to himself, to invite him to the graduation. But that means that he’ll have to break the news.
Peter’s key card still works at the Avenger’s Tower. As he rides the elevator to the penthouse, his ribs tighten in anticipation of pain. They left off on such a bad note and then Peter let him down-
He didn’t let anyone down. May keeps reminding him of that.
(He doesn’t know why he’s not over it. Why isn’t he over it yet?)
The elevator dings. The doors slide open. Mr. Stark is sitting at the counter, exactly as Peter left him months ago, tablet and coffee in hand. Their eyes lock.
Mr. Stark murmurs, “I didn’t believe FRIDAY when she said it was you.”
“I- I, um-” Peter nods, looking to the ceiling as pressure builds behind his eyes and warns of tears.
Tony’s voice as he stands is soft, soothing. Forgiving. “I missed you too, kid.”
Tears drip down Peter’s face and he runs over to hug Tony. “I missed you,” he cries into his shoulder.
They stand there for a long while until Peter’s sobs die down. He keeps his face hidden in Tony’s shirt and squeezes his eyes shut. “I just- I have to tell you. I didn’t get into MIT,” he whispers into the fabric.
“You didn’t get in?” Tony sounds shocked. “I can… I can write to them. I could make them change the decision. I’m their biggest donor, they would have to-”
Peter tenses but doesn’t pull away. “No, Mr. Stark,” he says firmly. He lifts his head to meet Tony’s gaze. “If I didn’t get in, I didn’t get in. And that’s… that’s okay.”
“I… Right, of course it’s okay but…” Tony pauses. He blinks. “This is… I don’t want to lose you again, Peter. I don’t want to fight. And…” His arms tighten around Peter. “I’ve been thinking a lot about what you said. Before. I shouldn’t have done that. I should have let you handle it on your own. I should have let you grow. I should have let you… fail just sounds so harsh, doesn’t it? But I shouldn’t have taken that away from you.
“I want what’s best for you. You know that, right, Pete? Maybe I did it the wrong way but all I want is for you to be happy. And I want us to be okay again. If you think that’s possible.” There’s a nervous undercurrent to Tony, in the minute shake of his arms and his unsteady hands.
“I want us to be okay again too.” Peter steps away from the hug, still holding loosely to Tony’s wrists. “That’s why I want you to come to my graduation.”
Tony’s smile is watery, trembling at the corners, but true. “Peter,” he lays a gentle hand on Peter’s cheek. “I would be honored.”
Tony and Aunt May cheer when his name is called and hand each other tissues as Peter gets his diploma. It’s a beautiful day, fun of sunshine and happy tears. Most of all, it’s a proud day. Peter hopes it’s just the first of many.
End Note: sooooo funny story, MIT was actually my dream school but I was deferred and then rejected so there's that (now I'm in Northeastern's honors program for engineering and I'm still SUFFERING so I guess that all worked out)
#spider-man: homecoming#marvel cinematic universe#tony stark#peter parker#mit#fanfiction#college#angst#hurt/comfort#thewar
18 notes
·
View notes
Note
Why are teenage rape survivors considered criminal for saying mean things on the internet while adults creating media with which they can be re-traumatized or backslide into their abuser's arms with can send harassment campaigns and try to intentionally trigger people? Why can adults excuse their behavior with the arguments IRL child rapists use while teens are considered to be saying nonsense because some of them are mean?
You can say “I’ve never seen this happen”, but I can say that 90% of shippers in the discourse do this, and you wouldn’t have the power to contradict me, because that’s proving a negative. It’s virtually impossible to say “most antis/shippers would never do this and those that do are a vocal minority”.
Let me be a little more clear here. I was raped as a child, repeatedly, and as a teenager, shippers made rape jokes and drew adorable rape shota porn. This made me think what happened to me was fine. This made me stop IDing red flags in the people around me, made me stop hearing about a 15-year-old dating a 20-year-old and thinking ‘that’s awful’. This is my experience. A lot of people have the same history. To contradict this is to say 'the danger you were put into doesn’t matter’.
You can’t say that it’s okay something is a danger because call out culture is bad. I’m not participating in callout culture. I’m sending asks you can reply to privately calmly explaining that I’m aware there is a danger and being angry on the behalf of grown adults not being able to post whatever they want and not on the behalf of survivors and children being unsafe in fandom is narrow-minded. Shippers constantly tell me that being raped is no reason to be mean just for saying so.
ARE they being harassed? Or are they just nervous and attacked because too many people at once dropped by to tell them that they hate what this artist is doing, for very valid reasons? You don’t know. You aren’t there to see what the actual proportion of harassment vs calm discussion on either side looks like. I see shippers harass more than antis, and you see vice versa. We can only judge based on what little we do know. What I know is something I have personally experienced.
You don’t have to try to stuff words into my mouth to prove that yes, there are always negative, hurtful people in the world who do terrible things, shipper or not, anti or not.
However, it’s not my responsibility as a creator if a rape survivor sees my work that contains rape. It’s not my responsibility to protect you or bend to your triggers in what I produce, though I will always advocate to give someone the ability to avoid your works through tagging or similar. That is up to the person viewing the content to protect themselves and their internet experience, as it always have been.
I’m deeply sorry for the trauma you endured in life–that is however, the fault of your rapists for doing that to you, and nobody but the people who did the acts to harm you or contribute to such abuse and trauma. It does not give you the ability, nor anyone else, to censor someone’s work, written or artistic. Do I enjoy rape shota porn? Absolutely not, but I can’t stop someone from creating it–but I can sure as fuck blacklist that shit so I don’t need to. Adult creators aren’t excusing anything, because they haven’t committed any such act. A creator of content containing rape does not equal a rapist. A creator of age gaps does not equal pedophile. A creator of incestuous works doesn’t equal condoning of rape or nonconsentual incest.
Again, I’m sorry you went through such an event, but you can’t place the blame on others, especially very self-aware creators in the current creative culture, in something like that. It’s not that children or survivors are unsafe in fandom, it’s that they need to learn how to filter their viewing experience of the internet. That’s how the internet works. You tailor your own experience of the content that you seek, and no matter what, it’s not the responsibility for a creator to do that for you. It sounds really harsh, but that is the raw truth to the internet in reference to the consuming of fictional creation. This is true for children in fandom, though many things are already in place to protect them–safesearch, tagging, filtering. Especially with the new implementation of tumblr censoring nsfw content for underaged bloggers–regardless, the user is always responsible for curating their own internet experience, and not for a creator to be obligated to curate to or worry about.
Also yes, creators are being harassed. They have been doxxed. They have been threatened (you can see plenty of that with someone like @lvtro, who is probably one of the most prolific in gaining hate and harassment for enjoying ‘problematic’ content). Some have had their lives ruined, a couple simply for having their name accidentally mentioned in massive rumor-spreading or callout posts. What I know is also what I have experienced, and I am not nor ever obligated to use my past emotional or sexual abuse as a weapon against creators. There is content I don’t like, content I will never be able to look at because of my past experiences, but that doesn’t give me the right to demean or vilify creators because they happen to create content that hits far too close to home for what I’ve been through.
I’m not responsible for the media that you consume; you are, and saying that does not dismiss or contradict sympathy to someone’s trauma. If you don’t like it, if it hurts you, if it makes you uncomfortable, then do not consume it.
#sukianswers#you didn't specify that you wanted me to post privately#i tend to post most all my asks publicly#i will delete if needed#discourse#micronecro
6 notes
·
View notes
Link
Olympic ice dance champion Charlie White posted a screenshot on Twitter on Jan. 17 of something he'd written "from the heart.'' It began, "Words matter. Action matters. The role we play in society matters. These are lessons I learned as an athlete, and they are the words I live by as an Olympian.''
The micro-essay was a signal that things were about to change on White's social media portal for his fans and followers, where his profile invites them to "Join me here for an important conversation.''
Since then, amid personal snapshots and promotional tidbits for the ice shows he does with partner and co-gold medalist Meryl Davis, White, whose Twitter handle is @CharlieaWhite, has posted a steady stream of strong opinions about national politics. Many of his Tweets have pointedly criticized the Trump administration, but White keeps returning to a more general theme he felt keenly as an international athlete: the image and example his country presents to the world.
White also engages in lengthy, patient, but firm reply threads with those who disagree with him. It's a huge departure from his sanitized competitive persona where, as he admits, "I wasn't a good interview. I didn't say interesting things.''
Taking such a public stance is unusual in the Olympic sports realm, where active athletes often refrain or are discouraged from making political statements by their sponsors and governing bodies, and are formally barred from doing so on the field of play at the Games themselves. (One outspoken exception is six-time Olympic shooting medalist and gun-rights advocate Kim Rhode, who addressed the 2012 GOP convention and last summer openly backed then-candidate Donald Trump.) White, who is married to 2006 Olympic ice dance silver medalist Tanith Belbin White, says he has felt no external pressure to censor himself. He and Davis have not competed since the 2013-14 season that culminated with their gold medal at the Sochi Games, but they have not ruled out a comeback. "[Tanith and Meryl] are both supportive," he says. "They know 100 percent that when I feel strongly about something, I can't stay silent. We're on the same page in terms of what is important in the world, and there are things worth standing up for."
White, 29, has been chipping away at a degree in political science at the University of Michigan for many years. He still makes his living in the figure skating realm as a performer, commentator and occasional choreographer.
He realizes some may think he's on thin ice, whether or not he and Davis ever compete again. But White says he is driven by a sense of obligation. "Post-election, I had to look at myself in the mirror and say, 'What are you really disappointed with here?' And unfortunately the answer was 'myself,''' he said in a recent interview. The following are excerpts from that conversation.
Ford: Was [commenting on politics] something that you had to ponder for a while, or did it happen organically?
White: It's very interesting to be doing an interview of this nature [laughs]. I've gotten so comfortable with my go-to answers regarding sport and figure skating. I'm a bit nervous to take this on publicly, both in this interview and via social media. I've long been interested in politics, but I never expected myself to become a political commentator, objector or relatively outspoken person one way or the other. It had less to do with being an athlete and more to do just with the fact that I really have worked hard for people to like me. And I have always enjoyed being able to make people happy. Unfortunately, it's always seemed to be that when you step into the political realm, you don't get the benefit of the doubt any more. That's weighed on me.
Following the election, I wasn't happy with the result. I understand the way politics work, as a living, breathing organism in our society, and that so often, change is revered for the sake of change. I got it. But I did, at that moment, recognize that being upset with the way the election turned out, I could really only hold myself accountable, as I hadn't participated as a vocal, active citizen in the process. I determined that if I want to be able to be at peace with myself, I have to take a larger role. I'm almost as surprised as some of my skating fans that follow me on Twitter.
Ford: I don't know what percentage of your replies [on Twitter] you're responding to, but it seems like a lot. What's that like?
White: That's an important part of it for me. Being able to engage with people is ultimately what will allow us to coalesce as a nation. I understand the deep divide and I understand partisan politics -- it doesn't seem there's an easy way out. So I think beyond being able to engage people with different kinds of ideological beliefs, and set a baseline for expectations that could be universally applied to our political system, that's a way in which you can start to heal what has been a grueling process that started with the campaigning for this last election.
We're all coming at this from very different life experiences. To be a good citizen, you have to be able to come to the table with an open mind and a respect for the diversity of the people you'll be dealing with, to learn something as well as contribute. On Twitter, it can be difficult. You're stuck with 140 characters, but that doesn't mean you can't give people an opportunity to listen to something they might not have heard before, in a respectful way. Being able to listen to people, even via social media, and make them feel they've been heard and understood, even if you disagree vehemently, I think that's something they can take with them and allow them a better way to enter into the next conversation they have with someone. It's been very important for me to engage with those who raise objections -- but also those who agree with me -- but do so in a way that I don't think is conducive to a healthy conversation. I have taken stands against people who, you know, they're trying to be funny, they're trying to be witty, I get that. So much of dealing with things that scare you is to trying to make it funny. But when that "funny" is at the expense of someone else, you put them in a defensive posture, and it's certainly not going to solve any problems.
Ford: Has it been hard to be restrained? Are there times when you draft a tweet and say, "No, I'm gonna trash that one.''
White: Yeah, of course. I'm fallible. I don't expect that all my interactions have been perfect or will be perfect. But I do have very high expectations for myself because I recognize that what's at stake is much bigger than being petty. It's so easy to be petty when you think there's no hope you'll be able to even have a respectful conversation. That's how it can often devolve. Online, when you're not face to face with someone, you can ignore they're a real person. Lately I have gotten some of those messages where it's like, 'OK, this person clearly isn't trying to add anything or take away anything. They might not even believe what they're saying, they just get a kick out of being mean.' You have to be aware of what you're dealing with. I generally try not to block people. You deserve more than one opportunity to bring something constructive to the table. Who knows what epiphany someone could have?
Ford: Skating can be a very snarky, subjective environment. But I've got to believe the worst of what you experienced then is nothing compared to what you could experience now.
White: As an athlete, I always had a very stoic approach. I want to apologize, but it was probably the right way of handling myself when we were competing -- I wasn't a good interview. I didn't say interesting things. I probably said about the same thing in 90 percent of my interviews for about eight years. But for me, it was always a matter of show, don't tell. If I had something to say, I did it by practicing hard, being consistent, keeping a level head and going out and doing my best. I think that allowed me to stay away from making critical mistakes at the wrong times. I feel the same way now. As long as you take an intelligent and measured approach to the things that matter to you, and you do so with an open mind and a kind heart, thinking about more than just yourself, then you can't be disappointed with the outcome. I feel that way about Twitter, and I feel that way about politics, and I feel that way about life. I think it's served me well so far. If through my actions and my words I can give strength, or courage, or a new take on the same information to 10 percent of the people who hear me or listen to me or care about what I say, then I think that will have been worth it. Even if zero percent are interested in what I have to say, I can't be disappointed in my own effort. That's certainly something I've taken from what I had to go through in skating.
Ford: You're still in that skating world, making a living in a different way, and I assume will do so indefinitely. Your sponsors, your agent -- have there been any uncomfortable conversations?
White: I haven't had a direct conversation with anyone about it. I know my parents are proud, which means a lot to me. Taking my tone and my approach into account, I don't think there's much to be worried about. Ultimately, when you feel as strongly as I do about questions of morality and ethics, you can't sell yourself short on that. There is a balancing act, of course. But I feel a great sense of duty to the country that allowed me the opportunity to have such a fantastic life, to represent them at the Olympics. I guess if there's an issue that ever arises, I'll have to deal with that. Right now, I feel fortunate that I haven't had any pressure to stay quiet.
Ford: Is it possible we would see you out marching?
White: Yes, absolutely. It's been exciting to see the way the public has responded. It's not easy to go out and take a stand for something you believe in. But that's how we started this country. It's a way of getting people -- not to think the same way, but to really think hard about what it is our country should be representative of.
51 notes
·
View notes
Text
Blockbusters assemble: can the mega movie live the digital era?
From Star Wars sequels to superhero dealerships, blockbusters still rule the film industry. But with Amazon and Netflix tearing up the freeing planneds, are they on shaky sand?
Is the blockbuster in hassle? On the surface, to hint such a thing might seem as absurd as handing out the wrong envelope at the biggest phenomenon of the movie docket because you were busy tweeting pictures of Emma Stone. This is the blockbuster were talking about. Its Luke Skywalker, Jurassic World, Disney, The Avengers, Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, Pixar. Its the Rock piercing his fist through a structure. Its the effects-driven culture juggernaut that powers the entire film industry. Does it look as if its in trouble?
A glance at the balance sheet for its first year to year would cement the view that the blockbuster is in insulting health. Total gross are higher at the present stage than any of the past five years. Logan, the Lego Batman Movie and Kong: Skull Island have all drew in big-hearted gatherings globally. And then theres Beauty and the Beast, a true-blue cultural phenomenon, currently racing its method up the all-time higher-rankings. All this and theres still a new Star Wars instalment, another Spider-Man reboot, Wonder Woman, Justice League, Alien: Covenant, Blade Runner 2049, plus sequels of (* deep breath *) Guardians of the Galaxy, Cars, World War Z, Kingsman, Transformers, Fast and the Furious, Planet of the Apes, Despicable Me, Thor and Pirates of the Caribbean still to come. Hardly the signs of a crisis, it would be fair to say.
Dig a bit deeper though and the foundations that blockbusters are built on start to look precariou. Last-place month, Variety produced a fib that painted a picture of an manufacture scared stiff by its own future, as customer flavors accommodate with changes in technology. Increased pres from Netflix and Amazon, those digital-disruption barbarians, has caused the big studios to consider changing the behavior they exhaust movies. The theatrical space, the 90 -day cushion between a cinemas introduction in cinema and its exhaust on DVD or streaming, is set to be reduced to as little as three weeks in an attempt to bolster dwindle dwelling amusement sales. Its a move that service industries sees as necessary, as younger onlookers develop more adaptable, portable viewing procedures, and certainly numerous smaller productions have begun to liberate their cinemas on-demand on the same day as in cinemas it was one of the reasons that Shia LaBeoufs Man Down grossed a much-mocked 7 in cinema.
Ana De Armas and Ryan Gosling in Blade Runner 2049. Photograph: Allstar/ WARNER BROS.
At the same time, investors from China long thought to be Hollywoods saviour have suddenly chilled the best interest, cancelling major studio slews as the Chinese box office abides growing hurtings( with domestic ticket auctions merely increasing 2.4% in 2016 against a 49% rise the year before)and the governmental forces crackdown on overseas investment starts to burn. Contribute to that a couple of high-profile recent busts Scarlett Johanssons Ghost in the Shell, Matt Damons The Great Wall, the unintentionally creepy Chris Pratt/ Jennifer Lawerence sci-fi Passengers, Jake Gyllenhaals Alien knock-off Life and you have an manufacture thats not as expanding as the blockbuster bluster might suggest.
Hollywoods response to this instability has been to double down, focusing on blockbusters to the exclusion of just about everything else. In the past decade the summer blockbuster season has mission-crept its lane well into spring, a phenomenon that has been period cultural global warming; this year, Logan was liberated a merely three days after the Oscars intent. The ensuing consequence is of a full calendar year of blockbusters, with a small drop-off for Oscars season in January and February and even in that span this year we still visualized the liberations of The Lego Batman Movie, The Great Wall, John Wick 2 and the regrettable Monster Trucks.
Meanwhile, the mid-budget film that hardy perennial that used to help prop up service industries by expenditure relatively little and often deserving plenties( belief Sophies Choice or LA Confidential) has largely been abandoned by the major studios, its potential profit margins seen as insufficiently high when the cost of things such as commerce is factored in. Which isnt to say that mid-budget movies dont prevail, its merely that theyre being make use of smaller, independent studios ensure Arrival and Get Out for recent successful specimen or most commonly as TV series.( Theres that Netflix, disrupting situations again .)
In essence, what this all means for service industries is the fact that it blockbuster or failure. Studios have looked at the altering scenery and decided to react by replenishing it with superheroes, war wizards and CGI mortals, acquiring more blockbusters than they used to, but fewer films in total. The old-fashioned tentpole formula, where a few large-scale films would shelter the mid-range and low-budget nonsense, has significantly been abandoned. The blockbusters are about reducing the films these studios produce down to a minimum, reply Steven Gaydos, vice-president and executive editor at Variety. They clear nothing but large-scale bets. You have to keep improving a bigger and more efficient spaceship.
Its a high-risk strategy and one that, in the form of Disney and their Marvel, Star Wars and Pixar dealerships, has brought big rewards. But this abrupt ratcheting up of the stakes means that the cost of default has already become far more pronounced. Last-place time Viacom was forced to take a $ 115 m( 92 m) writedown on Monster Trucks, while Sony took a writedown of roughly$ 1bn on their entire cinema disagreement after a faltering couple of years.
Hugh Jackman in Logan. Photo: Allstar/ 20 TH CENTURY FOX
While those losses might be explained away as the outcomes of bad stakes on bad films Monster Trucks was infamously based on an idea by an executives five-year-old son they hint at the holocaust who are able to ensue if a broader, industry-wide difficulty were to present itself. Namely, what if the public loses its appetite for the blockbuster?
Its not entirely without instance: in the late 1950 s, as television would be in danger of steal a march on cinema, studios responded by travelling large-scale. Spectacle was seen as the key: westerns, musicals and sword-and-sandal epics predominated. But gatherings soon thrived tired of these hackneyed genres and ticket auctions continued to shrink. That era the industry survived, thanks first to the infusion of vitality provided for under the jumpy, arty New Hollywood films, then later with the early blockbusters such as Jaws and Star Wars.
Could such a mass tuning-out happen again? Surely, theres an spooky resemble in the way that Hollywood has reacted to changing durations with width and spectacle, but also in their narrow focus. Once an sexual thriller such as Fatal Attraction or a musical drama such as Footloose might have reasonably been considered a blockbuster. Nowadays the blockbuster almost exclusively is still in the action, fantasize, boys cinema or superhero genres.
The superhero film including with regard to towers huge over the industry, as every studio tries to replicate the formula set by Marvel. Ever-more niche caped crusaders are being given their own cinemas Batgirl, Aquaman, the Gotham City Sirens in an attempt to unearth a new Deadpool. Spider-Man and Batman have once again been rebooted in an attempt to freshen up the respective franchises. And, of course, everyone wants their own cinematic macrocosm a immense galaxy of characters that together can generate a apparently infinite number of spin-offs, sequels and prequels. At this very minute, the creators of Call of Duty are actively seeking to turn their shocking shoot-em-ups into a series of interlocking films, while James Cameron a director whose preferred approach of cracking a seed is with a sledgehammer, you suspect is creating a universe around his smash-hit Avatar, replete with five sequels, graphic novels, actual fictions and, most bewilderingly, a Cirque du Soleil show.
These shared natures actively tribunal the sort of gatherings who will turn up to every movie, buy the action fleshes, don the cosplay outfits and ingest the branded breakfast cereal in other words, teenage sons. The dominant ideology is fanboy culture, says Gaydos. It is adolescent. It is the conflicts by violence. It is wish-fulfillment, spectacle and diversion phone and delirium, if we are seeking to get Shakespearean.
Truly, the geeks have inherited the earth. But what about the rest of us? How many people have the time, force or inclination to sit through, say, all the cinemas in the forthcoming Universal Monsters shared universe, which begins this year with a reboot of The Mummy and has resuscitations of Wolf Man, Van Helsing and the Invisible Human in pre-production? Greenlighting this serial of movies without be seen whether anyone is going to bother to watch even the first of them looks like a risky struggle, and the most recent plight of the Divergent YA movie franchise, whose recent movie is being exhausted as a Tv movie due to lack of interest, offers up a cautionary tale that studios should perhaps be paying attention to.
Cars 3. Photo: Allstar/ WALT DISNEY PICTURES
But whats impressing about all these blockbusters is how youth-skewed they find themselves, at a time when a one-third of cinemagoers in the US are over the age of 50. Older gatherings can experience The Avengers as much as everyone else, of course, but sloping your sell primarily towards young people is a risky strategy. Young parties tend to be the most fickle audience, one whose attention is split in thousands and thousands of regions, mentions Gaydos. Theyre too the gathering least able to splash out on cinema tickets. And of course theyre an audience who are becoming increasingly accustomed to watching material on their phones, laptops and smart TVs.
In other terms, theyre the ones likely to action through the seismic change service industries is currently fretting over. If they lose interest in the modern blockbuster in the way that younger audiences turned away from the westerns, musicals and historic epics in the 1960 s, the studios will have to find something glistening and brand-new to wave in their faces and this time they wont have something akin to the New Hollywood to court them with, as that kind of transgressive, edgy, groundbreaking fare is increasingly revolving up on the small screen.
Perhaps the best thing the studios can do in the face of this new world is to show some imagery in how they develop and present their blockbusters and there are signs that this is already happening. Producer Stephen Woolley, who has worked on cinemas such as The Crying Game and the forthcoming adjustment of On Chesil Beach, quotes Deadpool as a film that has subtly managed to shift the feeling of the superhero movie. Its taking a much more sophisticated viewpoint of that world-wide and ridiculing it, while at the same reinforcing it. It was a clever have-your-cake-and-eat-it from the people who made it.
Meanwhile, Disneys successful live-action reimaginings of their animated pieces most notably Beauty and the Beast and The Jungle Book suggests that its possible to play the sequels and remakings activity without it seeming like a retread over old floor. Most outstandingly of all, the musical think this is making a comeback with the success of La La Land, that rare mid-budget movie to have spanned over into blockbuster status, grossing more than $400 m at a budget of $37 m.
Woolley is aware of the risks twirling all over the blockbuster, but considered it important that mass extinguishing is still some road away, if it ever comes. The chance you have is that audiences are fickle, and they could abruptly turn off, he says. Something occurs for them to say: Actually, we dont such as those movies any more. And theres always this inkling that it might materialize. But every time it seems to happen on the blockbuster front, another movie comes out to prove you wrong.
Ultimately, though, what might keep the blockbuster safe for the time being is not the films themselves but all the stuff around them. The thing that the studios are doing is something akin to a hypermovie or a supermovie, mentions Gaydos. Its a whole other thing. Its a toy-delivery arrangement. A Cars movie will gross $500 m or $600 m but the Cars commodities will exchange$ 4bn. Ultimately the movie is designed to be a monster sell implement for merchandise and theme parks that produce billions and billions.
As Hollywood agonises over its own future, it might be that the best direction for the blockbuster to survive is to subsume itself into bigger, most secure revenue streams: playthings, recreations, merchandise, live attractions. So if you want to keep the blockbuster around for a while longer, you should get your Superman outfit on and run yourself a container of that branded cereal.
Read more: www.theguardian.com
The post Blockbusters assemble: can the mega movie live the digital era? appeared first on vitalmindandbody.com.
from WordPress http://ift.tt/2iEQwwV via IFTTT
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/01/29/cnn-tech-leaders-condemn-trumps-immigrant-ban-18/
CNN: Tech leaders condemn Trump's immigrant ban
The ink was barely dry on President Trump’s sweeping immigration order Friday when the backlash from the tech industry began.
Four of America’s biggest tech companies warned their employees about the ban. And leaders throughout the industry, where foreign-born entrepreneurs are central to its success, condemned the decree.
The executive order bans about 134 million people from entering the U.S.
Google (GOOGL, Tech30) sent out a memo to its employees urging anyone with a visa or green card from one of the banned countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — to cancel any travel plans.
“Please do not travel outside of the U.S. until the ban is lifted. While the entry restriction is currently only in place for 90 days, it could be extended with little or no warning,” the memo, which was reviewed by CNN, reads.
The company issued a statement Saturday, saying it’s “concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that could create barriers to bringing great talent to the US.” Google also vowed to “continue to make our views on these issues known to leaders in Washington and elsewhere.”
On Friday night, Google cofounder Sergey Brin was at San Francisco International Airport with crowds of protesters. He declined to comment and told CNN that he was there in a personal capacity, but is himself an immigrant from Russia.
Related: Trump’s latest executive order: Banning people from 7 countries and more
Apple (AAPL, Tech30) CEO Tim Cook issued a letter reacting to what he called “deep concerns” among employees. He assured them Apple does not support Trump’s policy. “Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do,” he wrote in an email obtained by CNN.
“There are employees at Apple who are directly affected by yesterday’s immigration order. Our HR, Legal and Security teams are in contact with them, and Apple will do everything we can to support them,” Cook’s email reads. “Apple is open. Open to everyone, no matter where they come from, which language they speak, who they love or how they worship.”
Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30) — which is run by Satya Nadella, who immigrated to the U.S. from India — told employees Saturday that the company is committed to providing “legal advice and assistance” to its 76 employees that are citizens of the affected countries.
Related: Here’s what tech execs are saying about Trump’s immigrant ban
“We appreciate that immigration issues are important to a great many people across Microsoft at a principled and even personal level, regardless of whether they personally are immigrants,” Microsoft executive Brad Smith said in an email to employees, which was shared by Nadella on LinkedIn.
The email also said the company will advocate for “protecting legitimate and law-abiding refugees whose very lives may be at stake in immigration proceedings.” Nadella has previously spoken out on the issue.
Amazon (AMZN, Tech30) also sent an email to employees about the potential implications of Trump’s order and offered legal assistance to employees who might be impacted.
“As we’ve grown the company, we’ve worked hard to attract talented people from all over the world, and we believe this is one of the things that makes Amazon great — a diverse workforce helps us build better products for customers,” according to the email sent by Beth Galetti, Amazon’s vice president of HR.
Immigrants and their families have a long history of starting and running American businesses.
A 2011 report from the Partnership for a New American Economy found that about 45% of high-tech companies in the Fortune 500 were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants.
That list includes highly influential founders from some of the banned countries: Apple founder Steve Jobs was the child of Syrian immigrants, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar is the child of Iranian parents, and Oracle’s Bob Miner is also Iranian.
Omidyar on Saturday called Trump’s decision “simple bigotry.”
In a tweet on Saturday, Square CEO Jack Dorsey said the ban’s “humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting.”
The Executive Order’s humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting. We benefit from what refugees and immigrants bring to the U.S. https://t.co/HdwVGzIECt
— jack (@jack) January 28, 2017
When asked by CNN about the impact of immigration restrictions on innovation, Dorsey said: “We benefit from immigration. We benefit from diversity. We benefit from including more people because we see different perspectives.”
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted on Facebook (FB, Tech30) Friday, citing the importance of immigration in his own life’s story.
Related: Startup visa alternative will launch in July
“We should also keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help,” Zuckerberg wrote. “That’s who we are. Had we turned away refugees a few decades ago, Priscilla’s family wouldn’t be here today.”
Facebook said in a statement Saturday that it’s “assessing the impact [of the ban] on our workforce and determining how best to protect our people and their families from any adverse effects.”
In a blog post, Y Combinator President Sam Altman called on the tech community to rally against Trump — calling the president’s actions “a first step toward a further reduction in rights.”
“This is not just a Muslim ban. This is a breach of America’s contract with all the immigrants in the nation,” Altman wrote.
He called on people to “not demonize Trump voters,” but urged leaders in the community to publicly denounce Trump’s actions “at a minimum.” And, he said, “employees should push their companies to figure out what actions they can take.”
Executives from LinkedIn, Yelp, Foursquare and Salesforce lambasted Trump’s decision via Twitter on Saturday.
The ban sparked fear among Muslims in the industry.
“I’m horrified. As an immigrant who came through the green card process, the idea that it could be invalidated and you could be stranded away from home is truly shocking,” an employee of one major tech firm said. “I’m a citizen now, but I have a lot of friends who aren’t and who are worried. Even if you’re not from one of those countries, if you’re Muslim, who knows what could be next?”
Related: Trump immigration plan could cost the U.S. billions
Some in tech also vowed to help fund the suit against Trump and support refugees who were in Limbo.
Shark Tank star and tech investor Chris Sacca promised to match up to $50,000 worth of donations to the ACLU.
I can barely keep up with the replies. Thank. You. All. 🇺🇸
But it’s clear we’re gonna need a bigger boat…
So I’ll match up to $50k. https://t.co/R3ttnbwgMV
— Chris Sacca (@sacca) January 28, 2017
Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky posted on Facebook that his company would house any refugees who were stuck in limbo because of the executive order.
“Airbnb is providing free housing to refugees and anyone else who needs it in the event they are denied the ability to board a U.S.-bound flight and are not in your city/country of residence,” he posted. He included his email address for anyone who needed assistance.
Box CEO Aaron Levie also promised to donate, and in an email sent to CNNMoney Saturday, Levie also called the executive order “immoral.”
Donating to the @ACLU today. We cannot let America turn into a closed off, fearful country. We’re better than this.
— Aaron Levie (@levie) January 28, 2017
“It’s also deeply flawed as a matter of policy and will undermine our economy and security in the long-term if maintained,” Levie wrote. “America’s principles should be about openness and inclusion, and we’re sending the wrong message to our communities and the rest of the world about maintaining these principles.”
Selena Larson contributed reporting.
CNNMoney (New York) First published January 28, 2017: 12:56 PM ET
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/01/29/cnn-tech-leaders-condemn-trumps-immigrant-ban-17/
CNN: Tech leaders condemn Trump's immigrant ban
The ink was barely dry on President Trump’s sweeping immigration order Friday when the backlash from the tech industry began.
Four of America’s biggest tech companies warned their employees about the ban. And leaders throughout the industry, where foreign-born entrepreneurs are central to its success, condemned the decree.
The executive order bans about 134 million people from entering the U.S.
Google (GOOGL, Tech30) sent out a memo to its employees urging anyone with a visa or green card from one of the banned countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — to cancel any travel plans.
“Please do not travel outside of the U.S. until the ban is lifted. While the entry restriction is currently only in place for 90 days, it could be extended with little or no warning,” the memo, which was reviewed by CNN, reads.
The company issued a statement Saturday, saying it’s “concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that could create barriers to bringing great talent to the US.” Google also vowed to “continue to make our views on these issues known to leaders in Washington and elsewhere.”
On Friday night, Google cofounder Sergey Brin was at San Francisco International Airport with crowds of protesters. He declined to comment and told CNN that he was there in a personal capacity, but is himself an immigrant from Russia.
Related: Trump’s latest executive order: Banning people from 7 countries and more
Apple (AAPL, Tech30) CEO Tim Cook issued a letter reacting to what he called “deep concerns” among employees. He assured them Apple does not support Trump’s policy. “Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do,” he wrote in an email obtained by CNN.
“There are employees at Apple who are directly affected by yesterday’s immigration order. Our HR, Legal and Security teams are in contact with them, and Apple will do everything we can to support them,” Cook’s email reads. “Apple is open. Open to everyone, no matter where they come from, which language they speak, who they love or how they worship.”
Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30) — which is run by Satya Nadella, who immigrated to the U.S. from India — told employees Saturday that the company is committed to providing “legal advice and assistance” to its 76 employees that are citizens of the affected countries.
Related: Here’s what tech execs are saying about Trump’s immigrant ban
“We appreciate that immigration issues are important to a great many people across Microsoft at a principled and even personal level, regardless of whether they personally are immigrants,” Microsoft executive Brad Smith said in an email to employees, which was shared by Nadella on LinkedIn.
The email also said the company will advocate for “protecting legitimate and law-abiding refugees whose very lives may be at stake in immigration proceedings.” Nadella has previously spoken out on the issue.
Amazon (AMZN, Tech30) also sent an email to employees about the potential implications of Trump’s order and offered legal assistance to employees who might be impacted.
“As we’ve grown the company, we’ve worked hard to attract talented people from all over the world, and we believe this is one of the things that makes Amazon great — a diverse workforce helps us build better products for customers,” according to the email sent by Beth Galetti, Amazon’s vice president of HR.
Immigrants and their families have a long history of starting and running American businesses.
A 2011 report from the Partnership for a New American Economy found that about 45% of high-tech companies in the Fortune 500 were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants.
That list includes highly influential founders from some of the banned countries: Apple founder Steve Jobs was the child of Syrian immigrants, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar is the child of Iranian parents, and Oracle’s Bob Miner is also Iranian.
Omidyar on Saturday called Trump’s decision “simple bigotry.”
In a tweet on Saturday, Square CEO Jack Dorsey said the ban’s “humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting.”
The Executive Order’s humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting. We benefit from what refugees and immigrants bring to the U.S. https://t.co/HdwVGzIECt
— jack (@jack) January 28, 2017
When asked by CNN about the impact of immigration restrictions on innovation, Dorsey said: “We benefit from immigration. We benefit from diversity. We benefit from including more people because we see different perspectives.”
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted on Facebook (FB, Tech30) Friday, citing the importance of immigration in his own life’s story.
Related: Startup visa alternative will launch in July
“We should also keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help,” Zuckerberg wrote. “That’s who we are. Had we turned away refugees a few decades ago, Priscilla’s family wouldn’t be here today.”
Facebook said in a statement Saturday that it’s “assessing the impact [of the ban] on our workforce and determining how best to protect our people and their families from any adverse effects.”
In a blog post, Y Combinator President Sam Altman called on the tech community to rally against Trump — calling the president’s actions “a first step toward a further reduction in rights.”
“This is not just a Muslim ban. This is a breach of America’s contract with all the immigrants in the nation,” Altman wrote.
He called on people to “not demonize Trump voters,” but urged leaders in the community to publicly denounce Trump’s actions “at a minimum.” And, he said, “employees should push their companies to figure out what actions they can take.”
Executives from LinkedIn, Yelp, Foursquare and Salesforce lambasted Trump’s decision via Twitter on Saturday.
The ban sparked fear among Muslims in the industry.
“I’m horrified. As an immigrant who came through the green card process, the idea that it could be invalidated and you could be stranded away from home is truly shocking,” an employee of one major tech firm said. “I’m a citizen now, but I have a lot of friends who aren’t and who are worried. Even if you’re not from one of those countries, if you’re Muslim, who knows what could be next?”
Related: Trump immigration plan could cost the U.S. billions
Some in tech also vowed to help fund the suit against Trump and support refugees who were in Limbo.
Shark Tank star and tech investor Chris Sacca promised to match up to $50,000 worth of donations to the ACLU.
I can barely keep up with the replies. Thank. You. All. 🇺🇸
But it’s clear we’re gonna need a bigger boat…
So I’ll match up to $50k. https://t.co/R3ttnbwgMV
— Chris Sacca (@sacca) January 28, 2017
Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky posted on Facebook that his company would house any refugees who were stuck in limbo because of the executive order.
“Airbnb is providing free housing to refugees and anyone else who needs it in the event they are denied the ability to board a U.S.-bound flight and are not in your city/country of residence,” he posted. He included his email address for anyone who needed assistance.
Box CEO Aaron Levie also promised to donate, and in an email sent to CNNMoney Saturday, Levie also called the executive order “immoral.”
Donating to the @ACLU today. We cannot let America turn into a closed off, fearful country. We’re better than this.
— Aaron Levie (@levie) January 28, 2017
“It’s also deeply flawed as a matter of policy and will undermine our economy and security in the long-term if maintained,” Levie wrote. “America’s principles should be about openness and inclusion, and we’re sending the wrong message to our communities and the rest of the world about maintaining these principles.”
Selena Larson contributed reporting.
CNNMoney (New York) First published January 28, 2017: 12:56 PM ET
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/01/29/cnn-tech-leaders-condemn-trumps-immigrant-ban-16/
CNN: Tech leaders condemn Trump's immigrant ban
The ink was barely dry on President Trump’s sweeping immigration order Friday when the backlash from the tech industry began.
Four of America’s biggest tech companies warned their employees about the ban. And leaders throughout the industry, where foreign-born entrepreneurs are central to its success, condemned the decree.
The executive order bans about 134 million people from entering the U.S.
Google (GOOGL, Tech30) sent out a memo to its employees urging anyone with a visa or green card from one of the banned countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — to cancel any travel plans.
“Please do not travel outside of the U.S. until the ban is lifted. While the entry restriction is currently only in place for 90 days, it could be extended with little or no warning,” the memo, which was reviewed by CNN, reads.
The company issued a statement Saturday, saying it’s “concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that could create barriers to bringing great talent to the US.” Google also vowed to “continue to make our views on these issues known to leaders in Washington and elsewhere.”
On Friday night, Google cofounder Sergey Brin was at San Francisco International Airport with crowds of protesters. He declined to comment and told CNN that he was there in a personal capacity, but is himself an immigrant from Russia.
Related: Trump’s latest executive order: Banning people from 7 countries and more
Apple (AAPL, Tech30) CEO Tim Cook issued a letter reacting to what he called “deep concerns” among employees. He assured them Apple does not support Trump’s policy. “Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do,” he wrote in an email obtained by CNN.
“There are employees at Apple who are directly affected by yesterday’s immigration order. Our HR, Legal and Security teams are in contact with them, and Apple will do everything we can to support them,” Cook’s email reads. “Apple is open. Open to everyone, no matter where they come from, which language they speak, who they love or how they worship.”
Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30) — which is run by Satya Nadella, who immigrated to the U.S. from India — told employees Saturday that the company is committed to providing “legal advice and assistance” to its 76 employees that are citizens of the affected countries.
Related: Here’s what tech execs are saying about Trump’s immigrant ban
“We appreciate that immigration issues are important to a great many people across Microsoft at a principled and even personal level, regardless of whether they personally are immigrants,” Microsoft executive Brad Smith said in an email to employees, which was shared by Nadella on LinkedIn.
The email also said the company will advocate for “protecting legitimate and law-abiding refugees whose very lives may be at stake in immigration proceedings.” Nadella has previously spoken out on the issue.
Amazon (AMZN, Tech30) also sent an email to employees about the potential implications of Trump’s order and offered legal assistance to employees who might be impacted.
“As we’ve grown the company, we’ve worked hard to attract talented people from all over the world, and we believe this is one of the things that makes Amazon great — a diverse workforce helps us build better products for customers,” according to the email sent by Beth Galetti, Amazon’s vice president of HR.
Immigrants and their families have a long history of starting and running American businesses.
A 2011 report from the Partnership for a New American Economy found that about 45% of high-tech companies in the Fortune 500 were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants.
That list includes highly influential founders from some of the banned countries: Apple founder Steve Jobs was the child of Syrian immigrants, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar is the child of Iranian parents, and Oracle’s Bob Miner is also Iranian.
Omidyar on Saturday called Trump’s decision “simple bigotry.”
In a tweet on Saturday, Square CEO Jack Dorsey said the ban’s “humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting.”
The Executive Order’s humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting. We benefit from what refugees and immigrants bring to the U.S. https://t.co/HdwVGzIECt
— jack (@jack) January 28, 2017
When asked by CNN about the impact of immigration restrictions on innovation, Dorsey said: “We benefit from immigration. We benefit from diversity. We benefit from including more people because we see different perspectives.”
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted on Facebook (FB, Tech30) Friday, citing the importance of immigration in his own life’s story.
Related: Startup visa alternative will launch in July
“We should also keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help,” Zuckerberg wrote. “That’s who we are. Had we turned away refugees a few decades ago, Priscilla’s family wouldn’t be here today.”
Facebook said in a statement Saturday that it’s “assessing the impact [of the ban] on our workforce and determining how best to protect our people and their families from any adverse effects.”
In a blog post, Y Combinator President Sam Altman called on the tech community to rally against Trump — calling the president’s actions “a first step toward a further reduction in rights.”
“This is not just a Muslim ban. This is a breach of America’s contract with all the immigrants in the nation,” Altman wrote.
He called on people to “not demonize Trump voters,” but urged leaders in the community to publicly denounce Trump’s actions “at a minimum.” And, he said, “employees should push their companies to figure out what actions they can take.”
Executives from LinkedIn, Yelp, Foursquare and Salesforce lambasted Trump’s decision via Twitter on Saturday.
The ban sparked fear among Muslims in the industry.
“I’m horrified. As an immigrant who came through the green card process, the idea that it could be invalidated and you could be stranded away from home is truly shocking,” an employee of one major tech firm said. “I’m a citizen now, but I have a lot of friends who aren’t and who are worried. Even if you’re not from one of those countries, if you’re Muslim, who knows what could be next?”
Related: Trump immigration plan could cost the U.S. billions
Some in tech also vowed to help fund the suit against Trump and support refugees who were in Limbo.
Shark Tank star and tech investor Chris Sacca promised to match up to $50,000 worth of donations to the ACLU.
I can barely keep up with the replies. Thank. You. All. 🇺🇸
But it’s clear we’re gonna need a bigger boat…
So I’ll match up to $50k. https://t.co/R3ttnbwgMV
— Chris Sacca (@sacca) January 28, 2017
Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky posted on Facebook that his company would house any refugees who were stuck in limbo because of the executive order.
“Airbnb is providing free housing to refugees and anyone else who needs it in the event they are denied the ability to board a U.S.-bound flight and are not in your city/country of residence,” he posted. He included his email address for anyone who needed assistance.
Box CEO Aaron Levie also promised to donate, and in an email sent to CNNMoney Saturday, Levie also called the executive order “immoral.”
Donating to the @ACLU today. We cannot let America turn into a closed off, fearful country. We’re better than this.
— Aaron Levie (@levie) January 28, 2017
“It’s also deeply flawed as a matter of policy and will undermine our economy and security in the long-term if maintained,” Levie wrote. “America’s principles should be about openness and inclusion, and we’re sending the wrong message to our communities and the rest of the world about maintaining these principles.”
Selena Larson contributed reporting.
CNNMoney (New York) First published January 28, 2017: 12:56 PM ET
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/01/29/cnn-tech-leaders-condemn-trumps-immigrant-ban-15/
CNN: Tech leaders condemn Trump's immigrant ban
The ink was barely dry on President Trump’s sweeping immigration order Friday when the backlash from the tech industry began.
Four of America’s biggest tech companies warned their employees about the ban. And leaders throughout the industry, where foreign-born entrepreneurs are central to its success, condemned the decree.
The executive order bans about 134 million people from entering the U.S.
Google (GOOGL, Tech30) sent out a memo to its employees urging anyone with a visa or green card from one of the banned countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — to cancel any travel plans.
“Please do not travel outside of the U.S. until the ban is lifted. While the entry restriction is currently only in place for 90 days, it could be extended with little or no warning,” the memo, which was reviewed by CNN, reads.
The company issued a statement Saturday, saying it’s “concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that could create barriers to bringing great talent to the US.” Google also vowed to “continue to make our views on these issues known to leaders in Washington and elsewhere.”
On Friday night, Google cofounder Sergey Brin was at San Francisco International Airport with crowds of protesters. He declined to comment and told CNN that he was there in a personal capacity, but is himself an immigrant from Russia.
Related: Trump’s latest executive order: Banning people from 7 countries and more
Apple (AAPL, Tech30) CEO Tim Cook issued a letter reacting to what he called “deep concerns” among employees. He assured them Apple does not support Trump’s policy. “Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do,” he wrote in an email obtained by CNN.
“There are employees at Apple who are directly affected by yesterday’s immigration order. Our HR, Legal and Security teams are in contact with them, and Apple will do everything we can to support them,” Cook’s email reads. “Apple is open. Open to everyone, no matter where they come from, which language they speak, who they love or how they worship.”
Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30) — which is run by Satya Nadella, who immigrated to the U.S. from India — told employees Saturday that the company is committed to providing “legal advice and assistance” to its 76 employees that are citizens of the affected countries.
Related: Here’s what tech execs are saying about Trump’s immigrant ban
“We appreciate that immigration issues are important to a great many people across Microsoft at a principled and even personal level, regardless of whether they personally are immigrants,” Microsoft executive Brad Smith said in an email to employees, which was shared by Nadella on LinkedIn.
The email also said the company will advocate for “protecting legitimate and law-abiding refugees whose very lives may be at stake in immigration proceedings.” Nadella has previously spoken out on the issue.
Amazon (AMZN, Tech30) also sent an email to employees about the potential implications of Trump’s order and offered legal assistance to employees who might be impacted.
“As we’ve grown the company, we’ve worked hard to attract talented people from all over the world, and we believe this is one of the things that makes Amazon great — a diverse workforce helps us build better products for customers,” according to the email sent by Beth Galetti, Amazon’s vice president of HR.
Immigrants and their families have a long history of starting and running American businesses.
A 2011 report from the Partnership for a New American Economy found that about 45% of high-tech companies in the Fortune 500 were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants.
That list includes highly influential founders from some of the banned countries: Apple founder Steve Jobs was the child of Syrian immigrants, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar is the child of Iranian parents, and Oracle’s Bob Miner is also Iranian.
Omidyar on Saturday called Trump’s decision “simple bigotry.”
In a tweet on Saturday, Square CEO Jack Dorsey said the ban’s “humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting.”
The Executive Order’s humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting. We benefit from what refugees and immigrants bring to the U.S. https://t.co/HdwVGzIECt
— jack (@jack) January 28, 2017
When asked by CNN about the impact of immigration restrictions on innovation, Dorsey said: “We benefit from immigration. We benefit from diversity. We benefit from including more people because we see different perspectives.”
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted on Facebook (FB, Tech30) Friday, citing the importance of immigration in his own life’s story.
Related: Startup visa alternative will launch in July
“We should also keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help,” Zuckerberg wrote. “That’s who we are. Had we turned away refugees a few decades ago, Priscilla’s family wouldn’t be here today.”
Facebook said in a statement Saturday that it’s “assessing the impact [of the ban] on our workforce and determining how best to protect our people and their families from any adverse effects.”
In a blog post, Y Combinator President Sam Altman called on the tech community to rally against Trump — calling the president’s actions “a first step toward a further reduction in rights.”
“This is not just a Muslim ban. This is a breach of America’s contract with all the immigrants in the nation,” Altman wrote.
He called on people to “not demonize Trump voters,” but urged leaders in the community to publicly denounce Trump’s actions “at a minimum.” And, he said, “employees should push their companies to figure out what actions they can take.”
Executives from LinkedIn, Yelp, Foursquare and Salesforce lambasted Trump’s decision via Twitter on Saturday.
The ban sparked fear among Muslims in the industry.
“I’m horrified. As an immigrant who came through the green card process, the idea that it could be invalidated and you could be stranded away from home is truly shocking,” an employee of one major tech firm said. “I’m a citizen now, but I have a lot of friends who aren’t and who are worried. Even if you’re not from one of those countries, if you’re Muslim, who knows what could be next?”
Related: Trump immigration plan could cost the U.S. billions
Some in tech also vowed to help fund the suit against Trump and support refugees who were in Limbo.
Shark Tank star and tech investor Chris Sacca promised to match up to $50,000 worth of donations to the ACLU.
I can barely keep up with the replies. Thank. You. All. 🇺🇸
But it’s clear we’re gonna need a bigger boat…
So I’ll match up to $50k. https://t.co/R3ttnbwgMV
— Chris Sacca (@sacca) January 28, 2017
Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky posted on Facebook that his company would house any refugees who were stuck in limbo because of the executive order.
“Airbnb is providing free housing to refugees and anyone else who needs it in the event they are denied the ability to board a U.S.-bound flight and are not in your city/country of residence,” he posted. He included his email address for anyone who needed assistance.
Box CEO Aaron Levie also promised to donate, and in an email sent to CNNMoney Saturday, Levie also called the executive order “immoral.”
Donating to the @ACLU today. We cannot let America turn into a closed off, fearful country. We’re better than this.
— Aaron Levie (@levie) January 28, 2017
“It’s also deeply flawed as a matter of policy and will undermine our economy and security in the long-term if maintained,” Levie wrote. “America’s principles should be about openness and inclusion, and we’re sending the wrong message to our communities and the rest of the world about maintaining these principles.”
Selena Larson contributed reporting.
CNNMoney (New York) First published January 28, 2017: 12:56 PM ET
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/01/29/cnn-tech-leaders-condemn-trumps-immigrant-ban-14/
CNN: Tech leaders condemn Trump's immigrant ban
The ink was barely dry on President Trump’s sweeping immigration order Friday when the backlash from the tech industry began.
Four of America’s biggest tech companies warned their employees about the ban. And leaders throughout the industry, where foreign-born entrepreneurs are central to its success, condemned the decree.
The executive order bans about 134 million people from entering the U.S.
Google (GOOGL, Tech30) sent out a memo to its employees urging anyone with a visa or green card from one of the banned countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — to cancel any travel plans.
“Please do not travel outside of the U.S. until the ban is lifted. While the entry restriction is currently only in place for 90 days, it could be extended with little or no warning,” the memo, which was reviewed by CNN, reads.
The company issued a statement Saturday, saying it’s “concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that could create barriers to bringing great talent to the US.” Google also vowed to “continue to make our views on these issues known to leaders in Washington and elsewhere.”
On Friday night, Google cofounder Sergey Brin was at San Francisco International Airport with crowds of protesters. He declined to comment and told CNN that he was there in a personal capacity, but is himself an immigrant from Russia.
Related: Trump’s latest executive order: Banning people from 7 countries and more
Apple (AAPL, Tech30) CEO Tim Cook issued a letter reacting to what he called “deep concerns” among employees. He assured them Apple does not support Trump’s policy. “Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do,” he wrote in an email obtained by CNN.
“There are employees at Apple who are directly affected by yesterday’s immigration order. Our HR, Legal and Security teams are in contact with them, and Apple will do everything we can to support them,” Cook’s email reads. “Apple is open. Open to everyone, no matter where they come from, which language they speak, who they love or how they worship.”
Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30) — which is run by Satya Nadella, who immigrated to the U.S. from India — told employees Saturday that the company is committed to providing “legal advice and assistance” to its 76 employees that are citizens of the affected countries.
Related: Here’s what tech execs are saying about Trump’s immigrant ban
“We appreciate that immigration issues are important to a great many people across Microsoft at a principled and even personal level, regardless of whether they personally are immigrants,” Microsoft executive Brad Smith said in an email to employees, which was shared by Nadella on LinkedIn.
The email also said the company will advocate for “protecting legitimate and law-abiding refugees whose very lives may be at stake in immigration proceedings.” Nadella has previously spoken out on the issue.
Amazon (AMZN, Tech30) also sent an email to employees about the potential implications of Trump’s order and offered legal assistance to employees who might be impacted.
“As we’ve grown the company, we’ve worked hard to attract talented people from all over the world, and we believe this is one of the things that makes Amazon great — a diverse workforce helps us build better products for customers,” according to the email sent by Beth Galetti, Amazon’s vice president of HR.
Immigrants and their families have a long history of starting and running American businesses.
A 2011 report from the Partnership for a New American Economy found that about 45% of high-tech companies in the Fortune 500 were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants.
That list includes highly influential founders from some of the banned countries: Apple founder Steve Jobs was the child of Syrian immigrants, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar is the child of Iranian parents, and Oracle’s Bob Miner is also Iranian.
Omidyar on Saturday called Trump’s decision “simple bigotry.”
In a tweet on Saturday, Square CEO Jack Dorsey said the ban’s “humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting.”
The Executive Order’s humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting. We benefit from what refugees and immigrants bring to the U.S. https://t.co/HdwVGzIECt
— jack (@jack) January 28, 2017
When asked by CNN about the impact of immigration restrictions on innovation, Dorsey said: “We benefit from immigration. We benefit from diversity. We benefit from including more people because we see different perspectives.”
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted on Facebook (FB, Tech30) Friday, citing the importance of immigration in his own life’s story.
Related: Startup visa alternative will launch in July
“We should also keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help,” Zuckerberg wrote. “That’s who we are. Had we turned away refugees a few decades ago, Priscilla’s family wouldn’t be here today.”
Facebook said in a statement Saturday that it’s “assessing the impact [of the ban] on our workforce and determining how best to protect our people and their families from any adverse effects.”
In a blog post, Y Combinator President Sam Altman called on the tech community to rally against Trump — calling the president’s actions “a first step toward a further reduction in rights.”
“This is not just a Muslim ban. This is a breach of America’s contract with all the immigrants in the nation,” Altman wrote.
He called on people to “not demonize Trump voters,” but urged leaders in the community to publicly denounce Trump’s actions “at a minimum.” And, he said, “employees should push their companies to figure out what actions they can take.”
Executives from LinkedIn, Yelp, Foursquare and Salesforce lambasted Trump’s decision via Twitter on Saturday.
The ban sparked fear among Muslims in the industry.
“I’m horrified. As an immigrant who came through the green card process, the idea that it could be invalidated and you could be stranded away from home is truly shocking,” an employee of one major tech firm said. “I’m a citizen now, but I have a lot of friends who aren’t and who are worried. Even if you’re not from one of those countries, if you’re Muslim, who knows what could be next?”
Related: Trump immigration plan could cost the U.S. billions
Some in tech also vowed to help fund the suit against Trump and support refugees who were in Limbo.
Shark Tank star and tech investor Chris Sacca promised to match up to $50,000 worth of donations to the ACLU.
I can barely keep up with the replies. Thank. You. All. 🇺🇸
But it’s clear we’re gonna need a bigger boat…
So I’ll match up to $50k. https://t.co/R3ttnbwgMV
— Chris Sacca (@sacca) January 28, 2017
Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky posted on Facebook that his company would house any refugees who were stuck in limbo because of the executive order.
“Airbnb is providing free housing to refugees and anyone else who needs it in the event they are denied the ability to board a U.S.-bound flight and are not in your city/country of residence,” he posted. He included his email address for anyone who needed assistance.
Box CEO Aaron Levie also promised to donate, and in an email sent to CNNMoney Saturday, Levie also called the executive order “immoral.”
Donating to the @ACLU today. We cannot let America turn into a closed off, fearful country. We’re better than this.
— Aaron Levie (@levie) January 28, 2017
“It’s also deeply flawed as a matter of policy and will undermine our economy and security in the long-term if maintained,” Levie wrote. “America’s principles should be about openness and inclusion, and we’re sending the wrong message to our communities and the rest of the world about maintaining these principles.”
Selena Larson contributed reporting.
CNNMoney (New York) First published January 28, 2017: 12:56 PM ET
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/01/29/cnn-tech-leaders-condemn-trumps-immigrant-ban-13/
CNN: Tech leaders condemn Trump's immigrant ban
The ink was barely dry on President Trump’s sweeping immigration order Friday when the backlash from the tech industry began.
Four of America’s biggest tech companies warned their employees about the ban. And leaders throughout the industry, where foreign-born entrepreneurs are central to its success, condemned the decree.
The executive order bans about 134 million people from entering the U.S.
Google (GOOGL, Tech30) sent out a memo to its employees urging anyone with a visa or green card from one of the banned countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — to cancel any travel plans.
“Please do not travel outside of the U.S. until the ban is lifted. While the entry restriction is currently only in place for 90 days, it could be extended with little or no warning,” the memo, which was reviewed by CNN, reads.
The company issued a statement Saturday, saying it’s “concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that could create barriers to bringing great talent to the US.” Google also vowed to “continue to make our views on these issues known to leaders in Washington and elsewhere.”
On Friday night, Google cofounder Sergey Brin was at San Francisco International Airport with crowds of protesters. He declined to comment and told CNN that he was there in a personal capacity, but is himself an immigrant from Russia.
Related: Trump’s latest executive order: Banning people from 7 countries and more
Apple (AAPL, Tech30) CEO Tim Cook issued a letter reacting to what he called “deep concerns” among employees. He assured them Apple does not support Trump’s policy. “Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do,” he wrote in an email obtained by CNN.
“There are employees at Apple who are directly affected by yesterday’s immigration order. Our HR, Legal and Security teams are in contact with them, and Apple will do everything we can to support them,” Cook’s email reads. “Apple is open. Open to everyone, no matter where they come from, which language they speak, who they love or how they worship.”
Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30) — which is run by Satya Nadella, who immigrated to the U.S. from India — told employees Saturday that the company is committed to providing “legal advice and assistance” to its 76 employees that are citizens of the affected countries.
Related: Here’s what tech execs are saying about Trump’s immigrant ban
“We appreciate that immigration issues are important to a great many people across Microsoft at a principled and even personal level, regardless of whether they personally are immigrants,” Microsoft executive Brad Smith said in an email to employees, which was shared by Nadella on LinkedIn.
The email also said the company will advocate for “protecting legitimate and law-abiding refugees whose very lives may be at stake in immigration proceedings.” Nadella has previously spoken out on the issue.
Amazon (AMZN, Tech30) also sent an email to employees about the potential implications of Trump’s order and offered legal assistance to employees who might be impacted.
“As we’ve grown the company, we’ve worked hard to attract talented people from all over the world, and we believe this is one of the things that makes Amazon great — a diverse workforce helps us build better products for customers,” according to the email sent by Beth Galetti, Amazon’s vice president of HR.
Immigrants and their families have a long history of starting and running American businesses.
A 2011 report from the Partnership for a New American Economy found that about 45% of high-tech companies in the Fortune 500 were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants.
That list includes highly influential founders from some of the banned countries: Apple founder Steve Jobs was the child of Syrian immigrants, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar is the child of Iranian parents, and Oracle’s Bob Miner is also Iranian.
Omidyar on Saturday called Trump’s decision “simple bigotry.”
In a tweet on Saturday, Square CEO Jack Dorsey said the ban’s “humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting.”
The Executive Order’s humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting. We benefit from what refugees and immigrants bring to the U.S. https://t.co/HdwVGzIECt
— jack (@jack) January 28, 2017
When asked by CNN about the impact of immigration restrictions on innovation, Dorsey said: “We benefit from immigration. We benefit from diversity. We benefit from including more people because we see different perspectives.”
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted on Facebook (FB, Tech30) Friday, citing the importance of immigration in his own life’s story.
Related: Startup visa alternative will launch in July
“We should also keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help,” Zuckerberg wrote. “That’s who we are. Had we turned away refugees a few decades ago, Priscilla’s family wouldn’t be here today.”
Facebook said in a statement Saturday that it’s “assessing the impact [of the ban] on our workforce and determining how best to protect our people and their families from any adverse effects.”
In a blog post, Y Combinator President Sam Altman called on the tech community to rally against Trump — calling the president’s actions “a first step toward a further reduction in rights.”
“This is not just a Muslim ban. This is a breach of America’s contract with all the immigrants in the nation,” Altman wrote.
He called on people to “not demonize Trump voters,” but urged leaders in the community to publicly denounce Trump’s actions “at a minimum.” And, he said, “employees should push their companies to figure out what actions they can take.”
Executives from LinkedIn, Yelp, Foursquare and Salesforce lambasted Trump’s decision via Twitter on Saturday.
The ban sparked fear among Muslims in the industry.
“I’m horrified. As an immigrant who came through the green card process, the idea that it could be invalidated and you could be stranded away from home is truly shocking,” an employee of one major tech firm said. “I’m a citizen now, but I have a lot of friends who aren’t and who are worried. Even if you’re not from one of those countries, if you’re Muslim, who knows what could be next?”
Related: Trump immigration plan could cost the U.S. billions
Some in tech also vowed to help fund the suit against Trump and support refugees who were in Limbo.
Shark Tank star and tech investor Chris Sacca promised to match up to $50,000 worth of donations to the ACLU.
I can barely keep up with the replies. Thank. You. All. 🇺🇸
But it’s clear we’re gonna need a bigger boat…
So I’ll match up to $50k. https://t.co/R3ttnbwgMV
— Chris Sacca (@sacca) January 28, 2017
Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky posted on Facebook that his company would house any refugees who were stuck in limbo because of the executive order.
“Airbnb is providing free housing to refugees and anyone else who needs it in the event they are denied the ability to board a U.S.-bound flight and are not in your city/country of residence,” he posted. He included his email address for anyone who needed assistance.
Box CEO Aaron Levie also promised to donate, and in an email sent to CNNMoney Saturday, Levie also called the executive order “immoral.”
Donating to the @ACLU today. We cannot let America turn into a closed off, fearful country. We’re better than this.
— Aaron Levie (@levie) January 28, 2017
“It’s also deeply flawed as a matter of policy and will undermine our economy and security in the long-term if maintained,” Levie wrote. “America’s principles should be about openness and inclusion, and we’re sending the wrong message to our communities and the rest of the world about maintaining these principles.”
Selena Larson contributed reporting.
CNNMoney (New York) First published January 28, 2017: 12:56 PM ET
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link
0 notes
Text
New Post has been published on News Twitter
New Post has been published on http://www.news-twitter.com/2017/01/29/cnn-tech-leaders-condemn-trumps-immigrant-ban-12/
CNN: Tech leaders condemn Trump's immigrant ban
The ink was barely dry on President Trump’s sweeping immigration order Friday when the backlash from the tech industry began.
Four of America’s biggest tech companies warned their employees about the ban. And leaders throughout the industry, where foreign-born entrepreneurs are central to its success, condemned the decree.
The executive order bans about 134 million people from entering the U.S.
Google (GOOGL, Tech30) sent out a memo to its employees urging anyone with a visa or green card from one of the banned countries — Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen — to cancel any travel plans.
“Please do not travel outside of the U.S. until the ban is lifted. While the entry restriction is currently only in place for 90 days, it could be extended with little or no warning,” the memo, which was reviewed by CNN, reads.
The company issued a statement Saturday, saying it’s “concerned about the impact of this order and any proposals that could impose restrictions on Googlers and their families, or that could create barriers to bringing great talent to the US.” Google also vowed to “continue to make our views on these issues known to leaders in Washington and elsewhere.”
On Friday night, Google cofounder Sergey Brin was at San Francisco International Airport with crowds of protesters. He declined to comment and told CNN that he was there in a personal capacity, but is himself an immigrant from Russia.
Related: Trump’s latest executive order: Banning people from 7 countries and more
Apple (AAPL, Tech30) CEO Tim Cook issued a letter reacting to what he called “deep concerns” among employees. He assured them Apple does not support Trump’s policy. “Apple would not exist without immigration, let alone thrive and innovate the way we do,” he wrote in an email obtained by CNN.
“There are employees at Apple who are directly affected by yesterday’s immigration order. Our HR, Legal and Security teams are in contact with them, and Apple will do everything we can to support them,” Cook’s email reads. “Apple is open. Open to everyone, no matter where they come from, which language they speak, who they love or how they worship.”
Microsoft (MSFT, Tech30) — which is run by Satya Nadella, who immigrated to the U.S. from India — told employees Saturday that the company is committed to providing “legal advice and assistance” to its 76 employees that are citizens of the affected countries.
Related: Here’s what tech execs are saying about Trump’s immigrant ban
“We appreciate that immigration issues are important to a great many people across Microsoft at a principled and even personal level, regardless of whether they personally are immigrants,” Microsoft executive Brad Smith said in an email to employees, which was shared by Nadella on LinkedIn.
The email also said the company will advocate for “protecting legitimate and law-abiding refugees whose very lives may be at stake in immigration proceedings.” Nadella has previously spoken out on the issue.
Amazon (AMZN, Tech30) also sent an email to employees about the potential implications of Trump’s order and offered legal assistance to employees who might be impacted.
“As we’ve grown the company, we’ve worked hard to attract talented people from all over the world, and we believe this is one of the things that makes Amazon great — a diverse workforce helps us build better products for customers,” according to the email sent by Beth Galetti, Amazon’s vice president of HR.
Immigrants and their families have a long history of starting and running American businesses.
A 2011 report from the Partnership for a New American Economy found that about 45% of high-tech companies in the Fortune 500 were founded by immigrants or children of immigrants.
That list includes highly influential founders from some of the banned countries: Apple founder Steve Jobs was the child of Syrian immigrants, eBay founder Pierre Omidyar is the child of Iranian parents, and Oracle’s Bob Miner is also Iranian.
Omidyar on Saturday called Trump’s decision “simple bigotry.”
In a tweet on Saturday, Square CEO Jack Dorsey said the ban’s “humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting.”
The Executive Order’s humanitarian and economic impact is real and upsetting. We benefit from what refugees and immigrants bring to the U.S. https://t.co/HdwVGzIECt
— jack (@jack) January 28, 2017
When asked by CNN about the impact of immigration restrictions on innovation, Dorsey said: “We benefit from immigration. We benefit from diversity. We benefit from including more people because we see different perspectives.”
Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg posted on Facebook (FB, Tech30) Friday, citing the importance of immigration in his own life’s story.
Related: Startup visa alternative will launch in July
“We should also keep our doors open to refugees and those who need help,” Zuckerberg wrote. “That’s who we are. Had we turned away refugees a few decades ago, Priscilla’s family wouldn’t be here today.”
Facebook said in a statement Saturday that it’s “assessing the impact [of the ban] on our workforce and determining how best to protect our people and their families from any adverse effects.”
In a blog post, Y Combinator President Sam Altman called on the tech community to rally against Trump — calling the president’s actions “a first step toward a further reduction in rights.”
“This is not just a Muslim ban. This is a breach of America’s contract with all the immigrants in the nation,” Altman wrote.
He called on people to “not demonize Trump voters,” but urged leaders in the community to publicly denounce Trump’s actions “at a minimum.” And, he said, “employees should push their companies to figure out what actions they can take.”
Executives from LinkedIn, Yelp, Foursquare and Salesforce lambasted Trump’s decision via Twitter on Saturday.
The ban sparked fear among Muslims in the industry.
“I’m horrified. As an immigrant who came through the green card process, the idea that it could be invalidated and you could be stranded away from home is truly shocking,” an employee of one major tech firm said. “I’m a citizen now, but I have a lot of friends who aren’t and who are worried. Even if you’re not from one of those countries, if you’re Muslim, who knows what could be next?”
Related: Trump immigration plan could cost the U.S. billions
Some in tech also vowed to help fund the suit against Trump and support refugees who were in Limbo.
Shark Tank star and tech investor Chris Sacca promised to match up to $50,000 worth of donations to the ACLU.
I can barely keep up with the replies. Thank. You. All. 🇺🇸
But it’s clear we’re gonna need a bigger boat…
So I’ll match up to $50k. https://t.co/R3ttnbwgMV
— Chris Sacca (@sacca) January 28, 2017
Airbnb CEO Brian Chesky posted on Facebook that his company would house any refugees who were stuck in limbo because of the executive order.
“Airbnb is providing free housing to refugees and anyone else who needs it in the event they are denied the ability to board a U.S.-bound flight and are not in your city/country of residence,” he posted. He included his email address for anyone who needed assistance.
Box CEO Aaron Levie also promised to donate, and in an email sent to CNNMoney Saturday, Levie also called the executive order “immoral.”
Donating to the @ACLU today. We cannot let America turn into a closed off, fearful country. We’re better than this.
— Aaron Levie (@levie) January 28, 2017
“It’s also deeply flawed as a matter of policy and will undermine our economy and security in the long-term if maintained,” Levie wrote. “America’s principles should be about openness and inclusion, and we’re sending the wrong message to our communities and the rest of the world about maintaining these principles.”
Selena Larson contributed reporting.
CNNMoney (New York) First published January 28, 2017: 12:56 PM ET
This post has been harvested from the source link, and News-Twitter has no responsibility on its content. Source link
0 notes