#trolls darcey | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

whatdoesshedotothem · 3 years ago

Text

Monday 1 February 1836

7 40

12 35

No kiss very stormy from 1 to 3 am perhaps about 2 before 3 loud peels of thunder and lightning one flash that lighted up the room - boisterous wind - rain pelted against the window - rainy boisterous morning, and F38° now at 8 40 at which hour breakfast - a minute or 2 with my father and Marian looked at my father’s carriage (phaeton sort of) to see if anything the matter with the springs - a general fault - too weak - bad iron-work - A- and I off at 10 to make calls - a stormy windy rainy haily day by fits but gleams of fair weather and on the whole managed tolerably well - called at Mr. Parker’ s office and left Wilkinson’s coal-deed - then at Willow field about 11 - staid ¼ hour - then 10 minutes at Mill house Mrs. WHR. had a sore throat and we did not see her - saw only the Misses Mary and Henrietta - then 25 minutes at Thorpe saw both the Messrs. Priestley Miss P- aetatis 18 a nice little girl enough and Miss Ellen Mill house Rawson staying with her - then ½ hour at Haughend saw Mr. and Mrs. HP- and their nice little boy aetatis 5 and Mr. Joseph Edwards aetatis 17 or 18 almost a dwarf, but good looking face - Mr. HP- coming our way tomorrow to Hove edge, to see after Mr. Harrison’s property - pity he will not sell it - Mr. S. Washington has valued it at £3500 (I think he said) or £3200 - very handsome - but says he himself would give the money - it only lets for £115 per annum and the stone that pays £20 or £30 per annum will soon be got out - I just said Dont sell without letting us know - meaning without me know, Mr. HP - said, it will not be sold - however I asked him not to forget what I had said and I think he will not - I shall bear this in mind - near ½ hour at Pynest saw Mr. and Mrs. Edwards - she looking miserably - 10 or 20 years older than a year ago - Mr. E- came in with a smile and affected to talk unconcernedly - was not the smile a nervous one - we began talking about the projected railroad - hurrying the parliament to their bill into the committee before the Huddersfield people - Mr. E- and I both agree they the Manchester people would carry their point - £2,200,000 subscribed - no want of money - there will be a difficulty in passing the road at Sowerby bridge - the best plan to carry the railroad over it (32ft. in height over it) and then the road to Halifax might be made a fine trolling road all the way - but this would cost £30,000 - the railroad should give £20,000 and it would be done - said I, you will get this sum if you hold out - Mr. E- seemed to agree - and we both agreed the railroad would do good - more good to the country at larger, and even to the navigation proprietors than to the proprietors of the rail - it was intended to limit the percentage of the Manchester and Liverpool to 12 or 14 p.c. interest and then the interest was to be lowered - but by an oversight in the action it was said that when the profit of the merchandise exceeded that rate of interest, the charge was to be lowered - now it was the passengers that paid so well - .:. the proprietors keep 2 separate accounts for the passengers and merchandise, and no safe enough from having to reduce their profit - then 10 or 12 minutes at Darcey Hey - saw the [?] with her and her sister Elizabeth and the Misses Delia and Charlotte Edwards - the morbid heartless? sentimentality of the widow talking of the euphony of the names of her child - (Catherine Francis) whether to call her Fanny or not and Ellen the prettiest name - the two l s [?] more liquid than the 2 n s [?] and such nonsense - sickened me - then to Mrs. William Rawson Savile Green - at dinner - left our card - then called on Miss Mary Briggs and sent the horses home to be fed - Miss MB-‘s uncle Mr. Allan would be much obliged to me for some information respecting Shibden hall - when sold by the Waterhouses etc - said I should be happy to give any information in my power - the best answers I could to any particular written questions - spoke of the Errors of Watson - then to Wellhead for about ½ hour with Mrs. Waterhouse and by and by came the Misses Catherine and Elizabeth Waterhouse - they just came in as poor vulgar Mrs. W- was beginning to bore me about my sister’s being going to be married - I had just said gravely no! I thought not when the 2 girls came to my rescue and the conversation turned then to Whitley’s, and got into the carriage at his door have brought away the periodicals for this month and the last years morning Herald in 2 large volumes - called at the vicarage - not at home - left our card - sat 10 minutes with Mrs. Catherine Rawson in her dressing gown not at 1st happy to be so taken by surprise Mrs. Jeremiah Rawson with her - then shopping at Nicholson’s - stopt at home a minute or 2 to leave the newspapers volumes etc. and then to Hipperholme - there at 5 and sat 1/4 hour (bridal visit) to Mr. and Mrs. Warburton - happy good humoured, good sort of school-teaching pair, the manners not courtly - better as they are - home at 5 35 - A- wrote to Miss Bentley - I have written her what t[o] write dinner at 6 35 - coffee - A- did her French as usual - tired and better for a little cry - I sat with my aunt from 8 ½ (my father gone to bed) at 10 then till 10 40 wrote the above of today - wild, windy, rainy, haily day with gleams and showers alternately - F35° at 10 40 and calmer than last night - the electric fluid bust last night (at 2 ½ am) the till of over Mr. Peter Bold of Ovenden - tremendous storm - everybody talked of it this morning and the continuous glare that for some seconds seemed to illumine the heavens - all the snow gone save a few white lines or threads along the high hills.

when did the Drakes sell 346-6. Shibden Hall? never had it to sell -

3 notes · View notes

wazafam · 4 years ago

Link

The American black comedy crime thriller A Simple Favor was released in 2018, and its cast members in it are extremely recognizable. The film, directed by Paul Feig from a screenplay written by Jessica Sharzer, is a suspenseful story based on the 2017 novel of the same name, written by Darcey Bell. The movie stars Blake Lively and Anna Kendrick in the main roles, among other notable actors in supporting roles. The plot centers on a small-town video blogger who attempts to solve the mystery behind her friend's disappearance.

A Simple Favor was released by Lionsgate, and the movie garnered critical praise upon its theatrical release. Most critics praised the chemistry of the ensemble cast, and also wrote enthusiastically about the movie's shocking plot twists and turns. The film ended up making $5.9 million on its first day alone, and grossed a total of $97 million worldwide, on a budget of only $20 million.

Related: The Equalizer 2021 Cast & Character Guide

Indeed, the movie has an impressive cast led by its main stars, Blake Lively and Anna Kendrick. Henry Golding, Andrew Rannells, and Linda Cardellini are some of the supporting cast members, as well as Jean Smart, Rupert friend, Eric Johnson, and Dustin Milligan, among other actors.

Blake Lively takes on the role of Emily Nelson, Hope McLanden, and Faith McLanden in A Simple Favor, and her character's life is the most interesting part of the film. Viewers know Lively from teen movies The Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants, Accepted, Simon Says, and other early-aughts flicks. Later, she appeared in movies ranging from New York, I Love You to The Town to superhero flick Green Lantern, which she starred in alongside her future husband Ryan Reynolds. In more recent years, Lively has appeared in The Age of Adaline, The Shallows, Café Society, and All I See Is You.

Following her success with A Simple Favor, Lively starred in the movie The Rhythm Section in 2020 alongside actors Jude Law and Sterling K. Brown. The movie follows a grieving woman who goes on a destructive path for revenge after learning that the plane crash that killed her family was actually a terrorist attack. To date, that is Lively's most recent role. From 2007 - 2012, of course, Lively starred as Serena van Der Woodsen in the hit show Gossip Girl, for which she won several accolades.

Like Lively, actress Anna Kendrick, who portrays Stephanie Smothers in A Simple Favor, has been working in Hollywood for several years. She first became a familiar face for her role as Jessica Stanley in the Twilight movies. Following the franchise's end, Kendrick began to take on different roles. She played Natalie Keener in Up In The Air, Janet Taylor in End of Watch and voiced Courtney Babock in ParaNorman. In 2012, Kendrick reached full stardom for playing Becca Mitchell in the popular movie Pitch Perfect. After that, Kendrick appeared in a slew of movies from 2013 until A Simple Favor in 2018, including What to Expect When You're Expecting, Drinking Buddies, Cake, Into the Woods, the two Pitch Perfect sequels, and The Accountant. She also appeared in the movies Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates and voiced a character in Trolls.

Related: The Shallows Behind The Scenes: How Filming Injured Blake Lively

Following her turn as Stephanie in A Simple Favor, Kendrick played Kendra Glack in the 2019 movie The Day Shall Come and portrayed Noelle Kringle in the holiday movie Noelle, released the same year. She also reprised her role in Trolls for the movie's 2020 sequel.

Andre Rannells, who plays Darren in A Simple Favor, began his career in television. He voiced characters on children's shows, like Pokémon and Yu-Gi-Oh!, as a kid, and the early aughts also saw his break into theater. He had numerous roles on the stage, and in 2011 played Elder Kevin Price in The Book of Mormon as an original cast member. From 2014 - 2018, he also had roles in Hedwig and the Angry Inch, Hamilton, Falsettos, and The Boys in the Band.

Related: Disney+ & HBO Max Already Have One Thing In Common: Anna Kendrick

Rannells became a familiar face on the screen when he joined the cast of Girls from 2012 - 2017, playing Elijah Krantz in 35 episodes. This role led him to other television parts, including Bryan Collins in The New Normal and Frazier H. Wingo in The Knick, as well as guest appearances in hit shows like How I Met Your Mother and Glee. He also had voice roles in the shows Sofia the First, Welcome to the Wayne, and Vampirina. Most notably, in 2017 Rannells joined the cast of Big Mouth. He continues to play that role into 2021, as well as continues to make occasional guest appearances on other shows. In terms of film — Rannell's most recent roles were in the 2020 films The Boys in the Band, The Prom, and The Stand In. And before appearing in 2018's A Simple Favor, he had parts in 2016's Why Him? and 2015's The Intern.

Linda Cardellini plays the part of Diana Hyland in A Simple Favor. Cardellini first became a household name in 1999, when she starred as Lindsay Weir in the cult television series Freaks and Geeks. That wasn't her first time in a series, though; throughout the late 1990s, she appeared in shows like Bone Chillers, 3rd Rock from the Sun, Clueless, Step by Step, Promised Land, Kenan & Kel, and Boy Meets World, among other programs.

Post-Freaks and Geeks, Cardellini continued her career in TV, appearing as Samantha Taggart in ER as Bliss Goode and Shelly in The Goode Family. She also had turns in popular shows like Gravity Falls, Mad Men, and New Girl, and took on the serious role of Meg Rayburn in 2015 for 33 episodes of Bloodline. In 2019, Cardellini began portraying Judy Hale in the Netflix series Dead to Me, opposite Christina Applegate.

Related: Why Freaks and Geeks Was Cancelled After One Season

Of course, many movie watchers know Cardellini's likeness from feature films. She appeared as Chutney Wyndham in Legally Blonde, and famously portrayed Velma Dinkley in Scooby-Doo and its sequel. Cardellini also had parts in Brokeback Mountain, The Lazarus Project, Kill the Irishman, and Daddy's Home and its sequel. Superhero movie fans know Cardellini as Laura Barton, the wife of Clint Barton aka Hawkeye in Avengers: Age of Ultron and Avengers: Endgame. And Cardellini has also starred in critically acclaimed films like Green Book, in which she played Dolores. In 2020, Cardellini portrayed Mae Capone in the movie Capone.

Actor Henry Golding portrays Sean Townsend in A Simple Favor. Golding has been a presenter on BBC's The Travel Show since 2014. Today's movie watchers primarily know him for playing the role of Nick Young in the hit 2018 movie Crazy Rich Asians, for which he won a Teen Choice Award. He also took on the role of Tom in the recent 2019 romantic-comedy holiday flick Last Christmas. Some lesser-known movies Townsend has appeared in include Pisau Cukur, Monsoon, and The Gentlemen. His most recent project is Snake Eyes, which is in post-production. In addition to being a longtime host on BBC's travel show, Golding has hosted shows including Football Crazy, Welcome to the Railworld Japan, and Surviving Borneo.

Jean Smart, who played Margaret McLanden in A Simple Favor, is most known for playing Lana Gardner on the NBC sitcom Frasier - a role for which she won two Primetime Emmy Awards. She started her impressive acting career in both film and television in the late 1970s. Some of the notable movies she's appeared in include Piaf, Homeward Bound: The Incredible Journey, Snow Day, Sweet Home Alabama, Garden State, Life As We Know It, The Accountant, and, most recently, Superintelligence.

Related: Blake Lively & Michiel Huisman Talk 'Age of Adaline' Science, Harrison Ford & More

Smart has also appeared in television shows other than Fraiser throughout her career. She voiced Helen Ventrix in an episode of Batman: The Animated Series, played Sally Brewton in three episodes of Scarlett, and played Elinore "Ellie" Walker for 13 episodes of High Society. She also gained recognition for playing Martha Logan, the First Lady, in the show 24, and for portraying Regina Newly in 35 episodes of Samantha Who?

Smart was in numerous other television series up until her turn in A Simple Favor, and also appeared in small guest roles in popular shows like Halt and Catch Fire and The McCarthys. In more recent years, Smart portrayed Floyd Gerhardt in Fargo and Melanie Bird in Legion, as well as Arlane Hart in Dirty John, Mimi in Arrested Development, and series regular Agent Laurie Blake in Watchmen.

Rupert Friend played Dennis Nylon in A Simple Favor. The actor began his career with the 2004 movie The Libertine. He first became a familiar face when he took on the role of Mr. Wickham in Pride & Prejudice. Throughout the early aughts he had several other significant roles, including Sandy Mardell in Outlaw and Demetrius in The Last Legion, as well as Lt. Kurt Kotler in The Boy in the Striped Pyjamas and Prince Albert in The Young Victoria.

Related: Bridgerton: Every Pride And Prejudice Easter Egg & Reference

TV-wise, Friend is most known for portraying the character Peter Quinn in 58 episodes of Homeland. For his performance as Peter, Friend was nominated for numerous accolades. He also appeared in other shows since the end of Homeland, including Dream Corp, LLC, Strange Angel, and, most recently, Anatomy of a Scandal.

Eric Johnson as Davis: played Flash Gordon on the eponymous 2007 - 2008 television series, as well as Whintey Fordman on the show Smallville and Jack Hyde in the Fifty Shades franchise, among other roles.

Dustin Milligan as Chris: played Ethan Ward on the teen drama show 90210. Most recently, of course, the majority of television watchers know him as Ted Mullens from Schitt's Creek.

Bashir Salahuddin as Detective Summervile: appeared in the movies Snatched and Gringo, and since then has been in Marriage Story and The 24th. He's also known as a writer on Maya and Marty and for portraying Keith Bang on GLOW and Office Goodnight on South Side.

Kelly McCormack as Stacy: known for playing Zeph in the sci-fi show Killyjoys and for playing Betty Anne on the show Letterkenny. Most recently, she wrote, produced, and starred in the feature film Sugar Daddy.

Sarah Baker as Maryanne Chelkowsky: was previously in the movies The Campaign and Mascots, as well as shows like The Kominsky Method and Louie.

Melissa O'Neil as Beth: first gained fame for winning the third season of Canadian Idol in 2005. She's also known for her roles as Two/Rebecca/Portia Lin on the sci-fi series Dark Matter and as Officer Lucy Chen on the police drama show The Rookie.

Of course, viewers have probably seen these listed stars in other movies and TV shows, too. This is a non-exhaustive list of the films and shows that they are most likely recognized from. When all of these actors came together to work on 2018's A Simple Favor, it was a notable project. The movie was praised for its ensemble effort and continues to gain traction among movie watchers today.

Next: A Simple Favor Ending: Disappearance Reveal & The Many Twists Explained

A Simple Favor Cast Guide: Where You Recognize The Actors From from https://ift.tt/37f1O1L

#Blogger

2 notes · View notes

spooky-pop · 3 months ago

Text

Went to see Joyryde the other night, my husband doesn't have a trollsona yet so I drew Darcey at the club with Poppy (since they are bestie girls, I said so)

#my art #trolls #dreamworks trolls #trolls darcey #trolls poppy #trolls fanart #trollsona #joyryde carried me thru my college years #i have never danced so hard #Spotify

534 notes · View notes

spooky-pop · 5 months ago

Text

I loooove her!!! <3

Art trade w/ @spooky-pop 💜

#trolls #trollsona #dreamworks trolls #not my art #reblog #trolls art #trolls oc #trolls darcey

135 notes · View notes

shivroy · 6 years ago

Photo

“/ Shut up, darn thinkpan!!! /”

(d’arcey’s design is by @glitch-trolls!)

#art #homestuck #fantrolls #d'arcey kuelen #ooh.... shes got... An Crush #on who?#..#.........#>:3c

31 notes · View notes

gayforsphaghettios · 7 months ago

Text

Favorite color: I personally love green, purple, and orange (blue as well)

Last song: dark beast Ganon theme (phase 1) (inspiration for writing)

Last movie: wish, honestly not a bad movie

Currently watching: impractical jokers, she-ra, great pretender, forest of piano, nimona, the dragon Prince.

Currently reading: written in the stars by Alexandria Bellefleur. And Flowerpaedia : 1000 flowers and their meanings by Cheralyn Darcey

Sweet/savory/spicy: sweet/savory

Currently craving: motivation to write, Oreo milk tea boba, soon brand kimchi noodles

Coffee or tea: a nice matcha latte or Thai tea, please

Relationship status: lesbian, single and unsure if ready to mingle??

Current obsessions: Loz bot/totk, sidlink, zelda, mipha, genshin impact (arleccino and kavetham. One is a ship), Steven universe, arcane league of legends, Voltron, troll hunters, DC, amphibia

Tagged by @glaciyat <3

Answer questions and tag nine people.

Favorite color: Basically any shade of blue

Last song I listened to: I've been listening to Epic the musical on repeat, not sure which of the songs I left off on

Last movie I watched: Princess Bride, it was a fun rewatch!

Currently watching: Dungeon Meshi, ATLA, Critical Role, Game Changer,

Currently reading : a book of norse folk tales a friend loaned me- it's fun reading through them and occasionally finding one I recognize, only a little to the left

sweet/savory/spicy? savory

Currently craving: A pause button for the universe, I've got too many deadlines, lol

Coffee or tea: I haven't found a tea I like yet, but I've found a couple coffees I like

Relationship status: Single, but also ace as hell

Current obsession: DnD/TTRPGs, Epic the Musical, Game Changer, Critical Role, Dungeon Meshi, long video essays about literally anything, a couple crafting/artsy youtubers and a stage combat youtuber (Rachel Masky, Prickly Alpaca, and Jill Bearup), and fanfic/fandom wise- way too many to name, I have been cycling through them like theyre hotcakes

@cryptids-and-muses @mistbornhero @idleworshipping @hilariousseagoat @tarantula-hawk-wasp @wolfjackle @bardly-working @devilangel657 @24kagrace

#tag game #i have way too many interests and that's not all #i love these so much

7 notes · View notes

jillmckenzie1 · 6 years ago

Text

The Most Terrible Poverty is Loneliness – Local Movie Reviewer Takes on A Simple Favor

What’s the point of consistently stepping outside our comfort zones? It’s healthy to stretch yourself. Most of us have been encouraged/yelled at by our parents to try new experiences, eat new delicacies, go to new places. By doing that, we get smarter, more empathetic, more sophisticated.

When filmmakers stretch themselves? That’s the good stuff. That’s when you have the chance to see something unique. Take Adam McKay for example. As a close friend of Will Ferrell’s, his directorial career began with films like Anchorman and Step Brothers, comedies that walked a fine line between surrealism and stupidity. McKay is also a pretty politically aware guy and his response to the 2008 housing crisis was to make the righteously angry The Big Short.

Other times when directors stretch themselves…well, it can be uneven. After directing the highly political JFK, Natural Born Killers, and Nixon, Oliver Stone proceeded to make the misanthropic noir U-Turn. After making The Last Temptation of Christ and Goodfellas, two of the greatest movies ever made, Martin Scorsese followed it up with the paranoid noir Cape Fear.

Hey…wait a minute! It’s almost as if there’s a pattern! It seems like, after they have firmly developed a signature, directors like to try something new and play in the noir sandbox. Can you blame them? There’s something cool about telling stories of lies upon lies, a seemingly good person finding themselves up to their neck in trouble. In 2016, Paul Feig remade Ghostbusters, which was savaged by internet trolls and just failed to break even. Did the experience motivate him to make the angry and anxious noir A Simple Favor? Perhaps.

If you’re a parent and you’re around other parents, you probably know someone like Stephanie (Anna Kendrick). A Connecticut mommy vlogger, she’s one of those parents that cheerfully volunteers for classroom activities. All of them. Need 200 cookies baked by 8:00 AM tomorrow? No problem, she’ll chirpily exclaim! Stephanie is mindful, positive, and achingly lonely. After a family tragedy, she’s a single mother to her young son, and that motherhood is all she has.

That is until Emily (Blake Lively) nonchalantly strolls into her life. Their boys are buddies, so that must mean the two women should become friends, right? Stephanie certainly thinks so, as she’s gobsmacked by Emily. Working a high-powered job in the city, Emily is acid-tongued, stylish, and she casually uses her beauty as a weapon. Sean (Henry Golding) is her husband, and he’s not immune to her emotional flaying. He wrote a novel that was successful. He hasn’t written another, and Emily won’t let him forget it.

Those casual cruelties don’t matter to Stephanie, because Emily is like a radiant sun that she’s happy to orbit. The two women drink martinis — lots of them, in Emily’s modern palace of a home, and Stephanie becomes smitten. Does she notice the acres of red flags, like when she takes a photo of Emily and Emily orders her to delete it?

Hell, maybe Stephanie is color blind, or maybe she just can’t believe someone like Emily wants to be friends with someone like her. Everyone has their quirks, right? Then, Emily vanishes. The police are called. Sean is inconsolable, and Stephanie steps up to help him with his son and the house. As all of this is happening, it occurs to Stephanie that maybe there’s more to Emily than she thought. And then?

I can understand why Paul Feig wanted to make this movie. Based on Darcey Bell’s novel, it features indelible parts for charismatic and witty women, which is right in Feig’s wheelhouse. For A Simple Favor to work, two things need to happen. First, the two leads need to be played by a couple of very strong actors that can handle the material and have the right chemistry. Second, the tone needs to be precision-engineered.

As a director, Feig excels at strong parts for women and giving them the flexibility to let their characters come to life. He features long takes of Kendrick and Lively talking and drinking, allowing their personalities to bounce off one another while enjoying the joke of the confident Lively looming over the elfin Kendrick. While we don’t need yet another gloomy thriller, Feig’s tone is wildly inconsistent here, and moments of real suspense are often undercut by jokes. It’s almost as if he set out to make a psychological thriller, and kept having to be reminded during the script that he’s not making a full comedy. There are some genuinely creepy moments, but Feig can’t quite manage the balancing act required.

Jessica Sharzer adapted the screenplay, and I didn’t love her going to town at the cliche buffet. There are dark family secrets! A possibly sinister elderly couple! A suspiciously large insurance policy! Noir was at its height of popularity in the 1940’s and 1950’s, and those audiences would have rolled their eyes at some of this stuff. The mystery is a little too predictable, but Sharzer absolutely nails the character work and gives the cast meaty roles to chew on. On top of that, Sharzer’s script is very funny, featuring some deft wordplay and an all-timer of a joke near the end of the film.

Feig is one of those directors that actors adore because he’s able to give even the smallest parts something special. The mighty Linda Cardellini has a single scene as an unhinged artist, and she’s funny and unsettling in equal measure. I also liked Bashir Salahuddin as Summervile, the cop investigating Emily’s disappearance.* You can see in Salahuddin’s eyes that he suspects something is up, but he’s delighted to see how things play out.

As Stephanie, I liked Anna Kendrick. She effectively sells the balance between Stephanie’s rampaging insecurity and her quiet competence as a problem solver. Stephanie is a smart woman, and she has a real knack for focusing on the best way to work a problem. That is, when her emotions aren’t getting in the way of things. Kendrick does excellent work playing a person who feels relatable and unique.

You might know that Blake Lively is married to Ryan Reynolds. When she saw her husband playing the unstable Deadpool, I wonder if Lively thought, “That looks like fun!” Like the merc with a mouth, Lively’s Emily excels at keeping everyone around her off-balance by using her wit and physicality in unexpected ways. Emily is a meaty role, requiring an actor to be seductive, sarcastic, narcissistic, ice cold, and surprisingly vulnerable. Lively absolutely nails all of that, and she plays the role with skill and humor.

Take a look at the trailer for A Simple Favor on YouTube, and you’ll see a marketing department trying like hell to sell an erotic thriller that’s “from the dark side of Paul Feig.” That’s not at all what the movie really is, and if you walk in knowing you’re seeing a comedy hidden in the scaffolding of a thriller, you’ll have a more accurate picture. Don’t let that turn you off, because there’s solid character work and a couple of indelible performances from Blake Lively and Anna Kendrick that make this film worth a watch.

*I know, we have another situation where the black guy plays the cop.

from Blog https://ondenver.com/the-most-terrible-poverty-is-loneliness-local-movie-reviewer-takes-on-a-simple-favor/

0 notes

theinvinciblenoob · 6 years ago

Link

Another day, another political grilling for social media platform giants.

The Senate Intelligence Committee’s fourth hearing took place this morning, with Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg and Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey present to take questions as U.S. lawmakers continue to probe how foreign influence operations are playing out on Internet platforms — and eye up potential future policy interventions.

During the session US lawmakers voiced concerns about “who owns” data they couched as “rapidly becoming me”. An uncomfortable conflation for platforms whose business is human surveillance.

They also flagged the risk of more episodes of data manipulation intended to incite violence, such as has been seen in Myanmar — and Facebook especially was pressed to commit to having both a legal and moral obligation towards its users.

The value of consumer data was also raised, with committee vice chair, Sen. Mark Warner, suggesting platforms should actively convey that value to their users, rather than trying to obfuscate the extent and utility of their data holdings. A level of transparency that will clearly require regulatory intervention.

Here’s our round-up of some of the other highlights from this morning’s session.

Google not showing up

Today’s hearing was a high profile event largely on account of two senior bums sitting on the seats before lawmakers — and one empty chair.

Facebook sent its COO Sheryl Sandberg. Twitter sent its bearded wiseman CEO Jack Dorsey (whose experimental word of the month appears to be “cadence” — as in he frequently said he would like a greater “cadence” of meetings with intelligence tips from law enforcement).

But Google sent the offer of its legal chief in place of Larry Page or Sundar Pichai, who the committee had actually asked for.

Which meant the company instantly became the politicians’ favored punchbag, with senator after senator laying into Alphabet for empty chairing them at the top exec level.

Whatever Page and Pichai were too busy doing to answer awkward questions about its business activity and ambitions in China the move looks like a major open goal for Alphabet as it was open season for senators to slam it.

Page staying away also made Facebook and Twitter look the very model of besuited civic responsibility and patriotism just for bothering to show up.

We got “Jack” and “Sheryl” first name terms from some of the senators, and plenty of “thanks for turning up” heaped on them from all corners — with some very particular barbs reserved for Google.

“I want to commend both of you for your appearance here today for what was no doubt going to be some uncomfortable questions. And I want to commend your companies for making you available. I wish I could say the same about Google,” said Senator Tom Cotton, addressing those in the room. “Both of you should wear it as a badge of honor that the Chinese Communist Party has blocked you from operating in their country.”

“Perhaps Google didn’t send a senior executive today because they’ve recently taken actions such as terminating a co-operation they had with the American military on programs like artificial intelligence that are designed not just to protect our troops and help them fight in our country’s wars but to protect civilians as well,” he continued, warming to his theme. “This is at the very same time that they continue to co-operate with the Chinese Communist Party on matters like artificial intelligence or partner with Huawei and other Chinese telecom companies who are effectively arms of the Chinese Communist Party.

“And credible reports suggest that they are working to develop a new search engine that would satisfy the Chinese Communist Party’s censorship standards after having disclaimed any intent to do so eight years ago. Perhaps they did not send a witness to answer these questions because there is no answer to these questions. And the silence we would hear right now from the Google chair would be reminiscent of the silence that that witness would provide.”

Even Sandberg seemed to cringe when offered the home-run opportunity to stick the knife in to Google — when Cotton asked both witnesses whether their companies would consider taking these kinds of actions?

But after a split second’s hesitation her media training kicked in — and she found her way of diplomatically giving Google the asked for kicking. “I’m not familiar with the specifics of this at all but based on how you’re asking the question I don’t believe so,” was her reply.

After his own small pause, Dorsey, the man of fewer words, added: “Also no.”

Dorsey repeat apologizing

‘We haven’t done a good job of that’ was the most common refrain falling from Dorsey’s bearded lips this morning as senators asked why the company hasn’t managed to suck less from all sorts of angles — whether that’s by failing to provide external researchers with better access to data to help them help it with malicious interference; or failing to informing individual users who’ve been the targeted victims of Twitter fakery that that abuse has been happening to them; or just failing to offer any kind of contextual signal to its users that some piece of content they’re seeing is (or might be) maliciously fake.

But then this is the man who has defended providing a platform to people who make a living selling lies, so…

“We haven’t done a good job of that in the past,” was certainly phrase of the morning for a contrite Dorsey. And while admitting failure is at least better than denying you’re failing, it’s still just that: Failure.

And continued failure has been a Twitter theme for so long now, when it comes to things like harassment and abuse, it’s starting to feel intentional. (As if, were you able to cut Twitter you’d find the words ‘feed the trolls’ running all the way through its business.)

Sadly the committee seemed to be placated by Dorsey’s repeat confessions of inadequacy. And he really wasn’t pressed enough. We’d have liked to see a lot more grilling of him over short term business incentives that tie his hands on fighting abuse.

Amusingly, one senator rechristened Dorsey “Mr Darcey”, after somehow tripping over the two syllables of his name. But actually, thinking about it, ‘pride and prejudice’ might be a good theme for the Twitter CEO to explore during one of his regular meditation sessions.

Y’know, as he ploughs through a second turgid decade of journeying towards self-awareness — while continuing to be paralyzed, on the business, civic and, well, human being, front, by rank indecision about which people and points of view to listen to (Pro-Tip: If someone makes money selling lies and/or spreading hate you really shouldn’t be letting them yank your operational chain) — leaving his platform (the would be “digital public square”, as he kept referring to it today), incapable of upholding the healthy standards it claims to want to have. (Or daubed with all manner of filthy graffiti, if you want a visual metaphor.)

The problem is Twitter’s stated position/mission, in Dorsey’s prepared statements to the committee, of keeping “all voices on the platform” is hubris. It’s a flawed ideology that results in massive damage to the free speech and healthy conversation he professes to want to champion because nazis are great at silencing people they hate and harass.

Unfortunately Dorsey still hasn’t had that eureka moment yet. And there was no sign of any imminent awakening judging by this morning’s performance.

Sandberg’s oh-so-smooth operation — but also an exchange that rattled her

The Facebook COO isn’t chief operating officer for nothing. She’s the queen of the polished, non-committal soundbite. And today she almost always had one to hand — smoothly projecting the impression that the company is always doing something. Whether that’s on combating hate speech, hoaxes and “inauthentic” content, or IDing and blocking state-level disinformation campaigns — thereby shifting attention off the deeper question of whether Facebook is doing enough. (Or even whether its platform might not be the problem itself.)

Albeit the bar looks very low indeed when your efforts are being set against Twitter and an empty chair. (Aka the “invisible witness” as one senator sniped at Google.)

Very many of her answers courteously informed senators that Facebook would ‘follow up’ with answers and/or by providing some hazily non-specific ‘collaborative work’ at some undated future time — which is the most professional way to kick awkward questions into the long grass.

Though do it long enough and the grass can turn on you and start to bite back because it’s got so long and unkempt it now contains some very angry snakes.

Senator, Kamala Harris, very clearly seething at this point — having had her questions to Facebook knocked about since November 2017, when its general council had first testified to the committee on the disinformation topic — was determined to get under Sandberg’s skin. And she did.

The exchange that rattled the Facebook COO started off around how much money it makes off of ads run by fake accounts — such as the Kremlin-backed Internet Research Agency.

Sandberg slickly reframed “inauthentic content” to an even more boring sound “inorganic content” — now several psychologic steps removed from the shockingly outrageous Kremlin propaganda that the company eventually disclosed.

She added it was equivalent to .004% of content in News Feed (hence Facebook’s earlier contention to Harris that it’s “immaterial to earnings”).

It’s not so much the specific substance of the question that’s the problem here for Facebook — with Sandberg also smoothly reiterating that the IRA had spent about $100k (which is petty cash in ad terms) — it’s the implication that Facebook’s business model profits off of fakes and hates, and is therefore amorously entwined in bed with fakes and hates.

“From our point of view, Senator Harris, any amount is too much,” continued Sandberg after she rolled out the $100k figure, and now beginning to thickly layer on the emulsion.

Harris cut her off, interjecting: “So are you saying that the revenue generated was .004% of your annual revenue”, before adding the pointed observation: “Because of course that would not be immaterial” — which drew a rare stuttered double “so” from Sandberg.

“So what metric are you using to calculate the revenue that was generated associated with those ads, and what is the dollar amount that is associated then with that metric?” pressed Harris.

Sandberg couldn’t provide the straight answer being sought, she said, because “ads don’t run with inorganic content on our service” — claiming: “There is actually no way to firmly ascertain how much ads are attached to how much organic content; it’s not how it works.”

“But what percentage of the content on Facebook is organic,” rejoined Harris.

That elicited a micro-pause from Sandberg, before she fell back on the usual: “I don’t have that specific answer but we can come back to you with that.”

Harris pushed her again, wondering if it’s “the majority of content”?

“No, no,” said Sandberg, sounding almost flustered.

“Your company’s business model is complex but it benefits from increased user engagement… so, simply put, the more people that use your platform the more they are exposed to third party ads, the more revenue you generate — would you agree with that,” continued Harris, starting to sound boring but only to try to reel her in.

After another pause Sandberg asked her to repeat this hardly complex question — before affirming “yes, yes” and then hastily qualifying it with: “But only I think when they see really authentic content because I think in the short run and over the long run it doesn’t benefit us to have anything inauthentic on our platform.”

Harris continued to hammer on how Facebook’s business model benefits from greater user engagement as more ads are viewed via its platform — linking it to “a concern that many have is how you can reconcile an incentive to create and increase your user engagement with the content that generates a lot of engagement is often inflammatory and hateful”.

She then skewered Sandberg with a specific example of Facebook’s hate speech moderation failure — and by suggestive implication a financially incentivized policy and moral failure — referencing a ProPublica report from June 2017 which revealed the company had told moderators to delete hate speech targeting white men but not black children — because the latter were not considered a ��protected class”.

Sandberg, sounding uncomfortable now, said this was “a bad policy that has been changed”. “We fixed it,” she added.

“But isn’t that a concern with hate period, that not everyone is looked at the same way,” wondered Harris?

Facebook “cares tremendously about civil rights” said Sandberg, trying to regain the PR initiative. But she was again interrupted by Harris — wondering when exactly Facebook had “addressed” that specific policy failure.

Sandberg was unable to put a date on when the policy change had been made. Which obviously now looked bad.

“Was the policy changed after that report? Or before that report from ProPublica?” pressed Harris.

“I can get back to you on the specifics of when that would have happened,” said Sandberg.

“You’re not aware of when it happened?”

“I don’t remember the exact date.”

“Do you remember the year?”

“Well you just said it was 2017.”

“So do you believe it was 2017 when the policy changed?”

“Sounds like it was.”

The awkward exchange ended with Sandberg being asked whether or not Facebook had changed its hate speech policies to protect not just those people who have been designated legally protected classes of people.

“I know that our hate speech policies go beyond the legal classifications, and they are all public, and we can get back to that on that,” she said, falling back on yet another pledge to follow up.

Twitter agreeing to bot labelling in principle

We flagged this earlier but Senator Warner managed to extract from Dorsey a quasi-agreement to labelling automation on the platform in future — or at least providing more context to help users navigate what they’re being exposed to in tweet form.

He said Twitter has been “definitely” considering doing this — “especially this past year”.

Although, as we noted earlier, he had plenty of caveats about the limits of its powers of bot detection.

“It’s really up to the implementation at this point,” he added.

How exactly ‘bot or not’ labelling will come to Twitter isn’t clear. Nor was there any timeframe.

But it’s at least possible to imagine the company could add some sort of suggestive percentage of automated content to accounts in future — assuming Dorsey can find his first, second and third gears.

Lawmakers worried about the impact of deepfakes

Deepfakes, aka AI-powered manipulation of video to create fake footage of people doing things they never did is, perhaps unsurprisingly, already on the radar of reputation-sensitive U.S. lawmakers — even though the technology itself is hardly in widespread, volume usage.

Several senators asked whether (and how comprehensively) the social media companies archive suspended or deleted accounts.

Clearly politicians are concerned. No senator wants to be ‘filmed in bed with an intern’ — especially one they never actually went to bed with.

The response they got back was a qualified yes — with both Sandberg and Dorsey saying they keep such content if they have any suspicions.

Which is perhaps rather cold comfort when you consider that Facebook had — apparently — zero suspicious about all the Kremlin propaganda violently coursing across its platform in 2016 and generating hundreds of millions of views.

Since that massive fuck-up the company has certainly seemed more proactive on the state-sponsored fakes front — recently removing a swathe of accounts linked to Iran which were pushing fake content, for example.

Although unless lawmakers regulate for transparency and audits of platforms there’s no real way for anyone outside these commercially walled gardens to be 110% sure.

Sandberg’s clumsy affirmation of WhatsApp encryption

Since the WhatsApp founders left Facebook, earlier this year and in fall last, there have been rumors that the company might be considering dropping the flagship end-to-end encryption that the messaging platform boasts — specifically to help with its monetization plans around linking businesses with users.

And Sandberg was today asked directly if WhatsApp still uses e2e encryption. She replied by affirming Facebook’s commitment to encryption generally — saying it’s good for user security.

“We are strong believers in encryption,” she told lawmakers. “Encryption helps keep people safe, it’s what secures our banking system, it’s what secures the security of private messages, and consumers rely on it and depend on it.”

Yet on the specific substance of the question, which had asked whether WhatsApp is still using end-to-end encryption, she pulled out another of her professionally caveated responses — telling the senator who had asked: “We’ll get back to you on any technical details but to my knowledge it is.”

Most probably this was just her habit of professional caveating kicking in. But it was an odd way to reaffirm something as fundamental as the e2e encrypted architecture of a product used by billions of people on a daily basis. And whose e2e encryption has caused plenty of political headaches for Facebook — which in turn is something Sandberg has been personally involved in trying to fix.

Should we be worried that the Facebook COO couldn’t swear under oath that WhatsApp is still e2e encrypted? Let’s hope not. Presumably the day job has just become so fettered with fixes she just momentarily forgot what she could swear she knows to be true and what she couldn’t.

via TechCrunch

#IFTTT #TechCrunch

0 notes

technicalsolutions88 · 6 years ago

Link

Another day, another political grilling for social media platform giants.

During the session US lawmakers voiced concerns about “who owns” data they couched as “rapidly becoming me”. An uncomfortable conflation for platforms whose business is human surveillance.

Here’s our round-up of some of the other highlights from this morning’s session.

Google not showing up

Today’s hearing was a high profile event largely on account of two senior bums sitting on the seats before lawmakers — and one empty chair.

But Google sent the offer of its legal chief in place of Larry Page or Sundar Pichai, who the committee had actually asked for.

Which meant the company instantly became the politicians’ favored punchbag, with senator after senator laying into Alphabet for empty chairing them at the top exec level.

Page staying away also made Facebook and Twitter look the very model of besuited civic responsibility and patriotism just for bothering to show up.

“Perhaps Google didn’t sent a senior executive today because they’ve recently taken actions such as terminating a co-operation they had with the American military on programs like artificial intelligence that are designed not just to protect our troops and help them fight in our country’s wars but to protect civilians as well,” he continued, warming to his theme. “This is at the very same time that they continue to co-operate with the Chinese Communist Party on matters like artificial intelligence or partner with Huawei and other Chinese telecom companies who are effectively arms of the Chinese Communist Party.