Author: Carrie

  • Next-level trolling

    There’s trolling, and then there’s this. An eight-year-old trans girl, Avery Jackson, has raised enough money to open a “transgender house” – directly across the road from infamous hatemongers the Westboro Baptist Church.

    It’s next to the rainbow-painted Equality House that’s been annoying them since 2013.

    If you’re not familiar with the WBC, they’re the ones who picket the funerals of soldiers, murdered gay kids etc. The Southern Poverty Law Center calls them “arguably the most obnoxious and rabid hate group in America.”

    I think Jesus would be on Avery’s side.

  • It’s a start

    Facebook has taken down much of Alex “Infowars” Jones’ content, as have Apple and Spotify.

    (Update, 7/8/18: Apple was the first to move. The others were clearly waiting for somebody else to lead.)

    Reuters:

    The company [Facebook] said it removed the pages “for glorifying violence, which violates our graphic violence policy, and using dehumanizing language to describe people who are transgender, Muslims and immigrants, which violates our hate speech policies.”

    Apple:

    Apple does not tolerate hate speech

    This stuff is all in the terms and conditions. For example, for Apple’s podcasts there is an outright ban on:

    • Content that could be construed as racist, misogynist, or homophobic
    • Content depicting graphic sex, violence, gore, illegal drugs, or hate themes

    Although its enforcement has been patchy, this is Facebook’s policy:

    We do not allow hate speech on Facebook… We define hate speech as a direct attack on people based on what we call protected characteristics – race, ethnicity, national origin, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, sex, gender, gender identity and serious disability or disease.

    I have some sympathy for these firms, because enforcement is a big job. Facebook again:

    Over the last two months, on average, we deleted around 66,000 posts reported as hate speech per week — that’s around 288,000 posts a month globally.

    That’s a lot of hate. But the point is, it’s against the rules whether it’s uploaded to Apple, posted on Facebook, streaming on Spotify or tweeted on Twitter. Apple alone is now a $1 trillion company; Facebook $522 billion; Twitter $32 billion; and Twitter $24 billion. If they’re short of moderators, they can afford to hire more.

  • Lies, damned lies

    Even by the Daily Mail’s low standards this is shocking, disgraceful stuff.

    Accuracy is important in any kind of journalism, of course, but it’s particularly important when you’re covering topics such as race relations and immigration.

    According to this furious Twitter thread by Marwan Muhammad, hardly anything in Malone’s article is true. It starts with confusion between a city and a province, pulls in completely invented statistics from far-right websites and prints outright lies. If Muhammad is correct, and his detailed, source-quoting thread suggest that he is, the whole thing is more like a racist pamphlet than anything you could call journalism.

    As I’ve said before, if a newspaper is lying to you about something so easily fact-checked – what else are they lying to you about?

    Update, 6/8: Mail Online has taken down the article and the author has suspended his Twitter account.

  • Facebook doesn’t want to be evil, but it is

    This, by Nikhil Sonnad, is a superb analysis of what’s wrong with Facebook and why it’s sending the world to hell in a handcart. Much of it applies equally to Twitter.

    Sonnad begins with the story of Antonio Perkins, who was shot dead as he filmed a Facebook video.

    Although his death is tragic, the video does not violate the company’s abstruse community standards, as it does not “glorify violence” or “celebrate the suffering or humiliation of others.” And leaving it up means more people will connect to Perkins, and to Facebook, so the video stays. It does have a million views, after all.

    The problem is that Facebook doesn’t see people as people. We’re just data.

    …the imperative to “connect people” lacks the one ingredient essential for being a good citizen: Treating individual human beings as sacrosanct. To Facebook, the world is not made up of individuals, but of connections between them. The billions of Facebook accounts belong not to “people” but to “users,” collections of data points connected to other collections of data points on a vast Social Network, to be targeted and monetized by computer programs.

    There are certain things you do not in good conscience do to humans. To data, you can do whatever you like.

    By this reading, Mark Zuckerberg is a modern-day Victor Frankenstein. He’s created a monster and has no idea how to control it, if controlling it is even possible any more.

    John Naughton makes the same point in The Guardian.

     This all became evident last week in a revealing interview the Facebook boss gave to the tech journalist Kara Swisher. The conversation covered a lot of ground but included a few key exchanges that spoke volumes about Zuckerberg’s inability to grasp the scale of the problems that his creature now poses for society.

    …I can see only three explanations for it. One is that Zuckerberg is a sociopath, who wants to have as much content – objectionable or banal – available to maximise user engagement (and therefore revenues), regardless of the societal consequences. A second is that Facebook is now so large that he sees himself as a kind of governor with quasi-constitutional responsibilities for protecting free speech. This is delusional: Facebook is a company, not a democracy. Or third – and most probably – he is scared witless of being accused of being “biased” in the polarised hysteria that now grips American (and indeed British) politics.

    Sonnad again:

    Facebook’s value system has diverged from that of the rest of society—the result of its myopic focus on connecting everyone however possible, consequences be damned.

    With that in mind, the thread running through Facebook’s numerous public-relations disasters starts to become clear. Its continued dismissal of activists from Sri Lanka and Myanmar imploring it to do something about incitements of violence. Its refusing to remove material that calls the Sandy Hook massacre a “hoax” and threatens the parents of murdered children. Its misleading language on privacy and data-collection practices.

    Facebook seems to be blind to the possibility that it could be used for ill.

    That blindness is already having terrible consequences. For example, the violence in Myanmar that  Sonnad refers to is attempted genocide. The UN human rights chief there, Markuzi Darusman, told reporters that social media had “substantively contributed to the level of acrimony and dissension and conflict, if you will, within the public. Hate speech is certainly of course a part of that. As far as the Myanmar situation is concerned, social media is Facebook, and Facebook is social media.” There are many individual tragedies too, such as people driven to suicide by howling online mobs. And of course social media has been fundamental in the rise of the far right and associated violence.

    We’re going to look back on this social media age with horror.

  • Can you trust tabloid “video game addiction” stories?

    Two days ago, the Daily Mirror ran a horrifying story of video game addiction. “Fortnite Made Me A Suicidal Drug Addict”, the headline screamed.

    It was harrowing stuff describing “video game hell” that led to an abortive suicide attempt.

    Was it exaggerated? It certainly looks that way. Eurogamer is on the case.

    There’s no evidence to suggest the Mirror’s Fortnite story was fabricated. But when you pull back the curtain and discover how these types of articles are put together, when you understand how some mainstream journalism works, it’s hard not to wonder about the motivations of the parties involved.

  • Sympathy for the Devil

    This New York Times story about the parents of Noah Pozner, who was murdered in the Sandy Hook massacre, is horrific.

    In the five years since Noah Pozner was killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., death threats and online harassment have forced his parents, Veronique De La Rosa and Leonard Pozner, to relocate seven times. They now live in a high-security community hundreds of miles from where their 6-year-old is buried.

    “I would love to go see my son’s grave and I don’t get to do that, but we made the right decision,” Ms. De La Rosa said in a recent interview. Each time they have moved, online fabulists stalking the family have published their whereabouts.

    Inevitably, Donald Trump believes that the man responsible for this horror, the snake-oil salesman and human stain Alex Jones, is “amazing“. His channels do big numbers for YouTube and Facebook.

    Jones and other demons hide behind the right to free speech, which is enshrined in US law. In our social media age US law is global: the likes of Facebook and Twitter are US companies who take a US approach to the content they publish.

    Whether by accident or design, that means they’ve become platforms for some of the worst people on the planet. I think it’s by design, because Facebook and Twitter do make editorial choices. Facebook won’t let you upload a photo of a woman breastfeeding. Twitter won’t let you use the name Elon Musk in your Twitter handle.

    That’s beyond the pale. Holocaust denial, targeted attacking of women and minorities, inciting racial hatred, rape and death threats… that’s all fine, it seems. On Twitter, right-wing armies relentlessly attack people without consequence; the people they assault are the ones who often end up banned.

    The supposed right to online free speech is starting to resemble the US right to bear arms: something that’s been perverted and used to cause untold misery. What scares me is that we’ve only scratched the surface of its malign power.

  • Be more Buzz

    Just when you thought mainstream media couldn’t get any more stupid…

    Sarah Cruddas is a science journalist. Today, she was asked to take part in a TV debate about whether or not we landed on the moon.

    As she put it on Twitter: “It is not okay to debate science fact.”

    There is no debate about whether or not we landed on the moon. There is the fact that we landed on the moon, and there is the fact that a handful of tinfoil-hatted fuckwits who shouldn’t be left alone with sharp objects post stupid shit on the internet. The existence of the latter in no way casts any doubt on the former.

    The way to deal with these people isn’t to give them airtime. It’s to give them Buzz Aldrin. You may recall that when moon-conspiracy documentary maker Bart Sibrel approached the astronaut back in 2002 with allegations of fakery, Aldrin punched him.

    Other science facts it’s not okay to debate include whether climate change is real, whether people of colour are physically or genetically inferior, whether vaccines cause autism, whether the world is flat and whether trans people are legitimate. If you’re commissioning “debates” on those issues or others like them, you’re a disgrace to your profession.

  • Bloody foreigners coming over here, perverting our politics

    Yet more evidence of the malign influence of US money on UK media and politics. Hope Not Hate analysed social media support for neo-nazi poster child Tommy Robinson and – surprise! – discovered that it’s overwhelmingly from foreigners.

    Only 40 per cent of the tweets using those hashtags came from UK users while 35 per cent of posts were from the US with the remainder split between countries including Australia, Canada, Germany, France, New Zealand and Netherlands.

    Meanwhile Steve Bannon, the man who was too right-wing for Trump and who aims to spark a far-right revolt in Europe, has been having discussions with Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and Jacob Rees-Mogg.

    “I’d rather reign in hell than serve in heaven,” he says.

    Photo by Elekes Andor, CC BY-SA 4.0

  • A five point plan to hate and hurt people

    A poster on Twitter reminded me of this 2016 story about the evangelical Family Research Council. It’s about the FRC’s five-point plan describing how to demonise trans people and make it impossible for them to live their lives.

    This isn’t a conspiracy theory. It’s on the FRC website, with the usual widely debunked nonsense.

    The points were:

    1. Policy-makers should strenuously resist efforts to legally recognize changes of sex or gender identity.
    2. The government shouldn’t force private entities to accept and recognise trans people’s gender identity, or protect them from discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, education and business transactions.
    3. The government shouldn’t pay for trans people’s transition-related healthcare.
    4. Health insurance shouldn’t pay for trans people’s transition-related healthcare.
    5. Trans people shouldn’t be permitted to serve in the military.

    As the Twitter user pointed out, it’s kinda difficult to tell the difference between that plan, current US policy and the “talking points” of anti-trans campaigners both in the US and in the UK.

    As the article, by Brynn Tannehill, put it:

    Stop for a moment here, and imagine a world where you can’t get an accurate government ID. A world where you can’t vote, can’t drive without risking arrest, and can’t get a job. You cannot prove that you are who you are, because no one will believe your ID is real. You will never be treated as your correct gender by any government agency. What ID you have will constantly out you as transgender, inviting discrimination. Perfectly legal discrimination, if part two of their plan succeeds.

    Now imagine being constantly outed as transgender in this world where the law explicitly states that you are a target. Imagine having that scarlet A on every ID you possess making it clear that the bearer of this card is sub-human and has no rights: fire them, kick them out of their home, refuse to serve them, take their children away, verbally abuse them for your amusement at work—it’s all good.

    This is all because in the eyes of the anti-trans crowd, trans people were born a certain way and must not be allowed to change it. If we try, we’re subhuman.

    Imagine if they said the same things about infertile couples taking IVF.

    Sophie-Grace Chappell writes for the American Philosophical Association and compares the treatment of trans people to that of adoptive parents.

    Nobody sensible thinks that it’s all right, when you find out that someone is an adoptive parent, to get in her face and shout “Biology! Science! You’re running away from the facts! You’re delusional! You’re not a real parent!”

    …Nobody sensible thinks that it’s an infraction of Jordan Peterson’s human rights to impose on him a social, ethical, and sometimes even legal requirement that he call adoptive parents “parents.”

    …Nobody sensible thinks that adoptive parents are, typically and as such, a threat to other parents. Or that they only went in for adoptive parenting as a way to get their hands on vulnerable children or vulnerable parents.

    Of course, organisations such as the FRC are against same-sex adoption and lesbian couples having IVF too, but the difference is that their views are not presented as mainstream and echoed every single week in major newspapers and all over social media by people who claim to be feminists.

    The FRC is a US organisation but its hands reach across the Atlantic in the form of the Hands Across The Aisle Coalition, whose founder is regularly and approvingly quoted by UK anti-trans activists on social media. The coalition lists the UK groups Fair Play For Women and Transgender Trend among its members.

    TT is the group responsible for the anti-trans materials sent to UK schools, and it and Fair Play For Women are the source of much of the anti-trans rent-a-quote stuff you see in the Mail on Sunday and other newspapers. TT’s crowdfunding campaigns are promoted by right-wing sites such as Breitbart.

    It’s very odd to see supposed feminists becoming best pals with virulent anti-abortionists and conservatives who hate women.

    Brynn Tannehill has written about that too, in the aftermath of the anti-trans disruption of London Pride:

    These right-wing organizations don’t try to hide their relationship with so-called feminists. Indeed, they proudly display it in order to create the illusion that both the left and the right oppose inclusion of trans people in society. In reality, only one side’s interests are being represented here ― the radical religious right.

    …They are all anti-choice. They all want to ban access to birth control. They universally want to overturn Lawrence v. Texas and allow states to make homosexuality illegal again. They want to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, and Roe v. Wade. They want to ban same-sex adoption. They all are hostile to fair-pay-for-women laws. They oppose women working outside the home. They are all hostile to the Women’s March and Me Too. They are fake medical organizations and anti-LGBTQ and anti-choice hate groups. They have cheered the assassinations of abortion providers. They are publications that have published horrible things about women, such as “Does Feminism Make Women Ugly?”

    This isn’t a choice between transgender people and women. This is a choice between trans people and right-wing organizations pretending to represent women.

    Some of the anti-trans activists on social media hate trans people because they’re bigots: many of them have espoused straight-up racism and antisemitism too. But many of the people calling trans-inclusive women “handmaidens” are apparently unaware that they’re doing the work of the US religious right.

    Evangelicals’ bigotry didn’t go away when the battle for equal marriage was won. They just changed tactics and went looking for new friends. Sadly, they seem to be finding an awful lot of them.

  • Mobile phones still don’t cause cancer

    No it can’t.

    When it comes to conspiracy theories, there are two kinds of theorists: the batshit insane, and the people who genuinely believe they’ve stumbled on a conspiracy.

    There was a good example of what I assume is the latter last week in The Observer, which published an astonishing piece about the link between mobile phones and cancer. It turns out that mobile phones really do cause cancer, and there’s a global conspiracy to cover it up.

    No they don’t, and no there isn’t.

    This is something I know a fair bit about, because I’ve covered the subject a lot over the last two decades. Whether it’s phones or wireless networks, every now and then someone comes along and misunderstands the science to conclude that our brains are being cooked and there’s a conspiracy to cover it up.

    Part of the problem is the word “radiation”. We assume that all radiation is ionising radiation, the kind that gives you skin cancer. But radiation also includes the radio waves that bring you Radio Scotland and the light waves coming from your light bulbs.

    The radiation from phones and wireless routers is very low powered, non-ionising radiation. As far as science is aware, there is no possible way the radiation from these devices can cause cancer.

    The Observer has run a follow-up piece this week, this time by somebody who knows the science. It gives the authors of the previous article a very polite but very thorough kicking.

    That the authors attribute this lack of evidence for their claims to the machinations of a nebulous big telecoms is indicative of a mindset more conspiratorial than sceptical… Scaremongering narratives may be more alluring than the less sensational, scientific findings, but they are not harmless. We need only look at any vaccine panic to see the cost in human life when superstition outpaces science. In an age where misinformation can perpetuate rapidly, it can be difficult to parse fact from fiction, but it’s imperative that we hone our scientific scepticism rather than succumb to baseless panics – our very wellbeing depends on it.

    If you’re a journalist considering writing an “ordinary thing causes cancer!” piece it’s worth applying Occam’s Razor, which suggests that the simplest explanation is the most likely. Which is more likely: a) there’s a global conspiracy that’s willingly sacrificing thousands or even millions of lives and which has operated for decades without leaving any evidence whatsoever, or b) you’ve got it wrong?

    A journalist’s job is to report what the evidence says, not to cherry-pick the evidence to support the story the journalist wants to tell.